The research proposes to bring the global population to 4 billion by the year 2200 through a gradual decline
According to their controversial projections, the population could reach 11.4 billion by 2100, with a scenario that would allegedly involve “almost double the current CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and pesticide use, and quadruple plastic waste.”
In light of this outlook, the researchers argue that “ending and gradually reversing population growth” is a key strategy to protect both the "environment" and "humanity."
A group of scientists claimed that the only way to avoid a "large-scale environmental collapse" would be to significantly reduce the world population in the coming centuries, approximately to half the current number, in line with the goals of the 2030 Agenda.
They argue that the planet cannot sustain the current rate of population growth, which in the last century increased from less than 2 billion people to over 8.3 billion.
In an article published in the journal Sustainable Development, the scientists assert that human impact on natural resources has allegedly reached critical levels. In this context, they propose a concrete goal: to reduce the global population to approximately 4 billion people by the year 2200.
Unlike other similar proposals, they clarify that this process should occur in a gradual manner and not through abrupt measures.
“Facilitating access to a smaller and sustainable population would not deprive billions of people of their lives, but would ensure that, when they arrive, the conditions will be good,” they state in the study.
They explain that the key is not coercion, but rather expanding access to "family planning services", especially in low-income countries, and policies such as abortion.
The dark proposal is based on the premise that the total environmental impact is the result of the individual footprint multiplied by the number of inhabitants.
Since resource consumption and waste generation per person show no signs of decreasing, the researchers conclude that population growth inevitably exacerbates pressure on ecosystems.
Among the possible "benefits," they mention the reduction of pressure on natural resources, the decrease of poverty in high-birth-rate regions, and the improvement of quality of life in densely populated areas.
The study highlights that fertility decline can be achieved without coercive measures, by promoting the "empowerment" of women to voluntarily have fewer children.
“When women are free to decide how many children to have, fertility rates tend to fall to replacement level or even below, often quickly,” they indicate.
As an example, they cite cases like Iran and South Korea, where the implementation of policies drastically reduced the number of children per woman in just a few years.
However, a sustained reduction in population would negatively impact economic growth due to the aging workforce. According to the International Monetary Fund, this trend could significantly cut global growth potential in the coming decades.
Still, the researchers believe this is a necessary cost in the face of environmental risk. “Growing wealth and consumption are not ecologically sustainable, and the sooner our societies confront this uncomfortable truth, the better,” they conclude
