A crowd gathers in Philadelphia to celebrate the Eagles’ Super Bowl win in February. Thomas Hengge/Anadolu via Getty Images

Would the World Be Better Off With Fewer People?

April 21, 2025

The world’s population will stop growing in about 60 years, according to projections by the United Nations. After peaking at 10.3 billion people in the mid-2080s, humanity’s numbers will begin a gradual decline, slipping to 10.2 billion by 2100, earlier than previously anticipated. In many countries, plummeting birth rates in recent decades signal that the decline in these places may already have begun.

Globally, women are having fewer babies. As career opportunities increase, especially for women, people everywhere are choosing to have smaller families or no children at all. In fact, fertility rates are the lowest in countries with the most-robust economies.

What does a shrinking population mean for the world? Some believe it could lead to greater gender equality and reduce our impact on the environment, while others predict that smaller populations will yield smaller economies and a lower quality of life for everyone.

So would the world be better off with fewer people? A conservationist and an economist face off on the question.

Birth rates worldwide are declining, and that’s good news. A shrinking population will help ease pressure on the environment and enable us to move toward fairer, more humane ways of life.

There are some 8 billion people on the planet, more than twice as many as there were 50 years ago. No other large mammal has grown as quickly and with such devastating consequences: As we’ve doubled in number and destroyed natural habitats, wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 69 percent.

Our expanding populations haven’t just put other species at risk. Deforestation, climate change, and pollution are affecting our health, including our ability to grow food, breathe clean air, and gain access to safe water. Wealthy countries like the United States have an outsized impact in this: Less than 5 percent of humanity lives in the U.S., yet we consume 16 percent of the world’s energy and produce 12 percent of its trash. Everyone needs food, water, energy, and shelter, but as standards of living go up, so does our consumption.

A shrinking population will help us move toward fairer, more humane ways of life.

So it’s good that birth rates are declining. It’s also good why they’re declining. Increased access to reproductive health care has made it easier to choose when to have children, and many families are having fewer of them. In parts of the world, improved gender equity and education for women and girls have increased opportunities outside the home. Many women are having smaller families while enjoying greater financial independence and taking more active roles in their communities.

Some people worry that a shrinking population will shrink our economy, a growth-based system that continuously needs more people to create more profits. This system has put the burden on women to keep having children. But there are alternative economic models that put people above profit—resource-sharing models such as mutual aid societies, co-ops, and credit unions.* We could apply these on a larger scale.

We need to accept that infinite growth isn’t possible on a finite planet. A smaller population is an opportunity to improve the lives of people and wildlife alike.

—STEPHANIE FELDSTEIN
Center for Biological Diversity

There’s good reason to worry about population decline, on both a national and a global level. As birth rates fall, there will be fewer young people working and a growing number of older people. This will strain public support programs, and it could lead to slower economic growth and fewer improvements in standards of living.

Throughout history, population growth has improved living standards. This is because higher numbers of young workers drive dynamic economies. Younger workers bring new ideas, products, and technologies, expanding economies and generating wealth. But when a workforce is older, studies show, there are fewer fresh ideas and less innovation.

An aging population also makes it difficult for governments to maintain social insurance programs, such as Social Security and Medicare in the U.S. These programs, which fund benefits for retirees, rely on taxes paid by people who are working. But as the birth rate declines, the number of workers will decline. There won’t be enough money coming into the system to support those who rely on it. The government will either have to raise taxes on workers or cut retirees’ benefits.

More people means more ideas that can improve life for everyone.

In general, more people means more improvements in life for everyone-: more people to discover vaccines and cure diseases, to devise systems for delivering food and medicine around the world, to make art and music and perform amazing athletic feats that bring others joy.

So how can we address the challenges of population decline? To be sure, nobody should be coerced into having children. Rather, we should promote policies that make it easier for people who want to have children-—things like government income support to families with children, reforms that make it easier for young families to own a home, and expanded access to affordable child care. Governments should also do more to increase worker productivity, by investing in education and in scientific discovery and development. We need to be pragmatic, and take dedicated steps to maintain innovation, promote economic dynamism, and continue to advance living standards for people everywhere.

—MELISSA KEARNEY
Economist, University of Maryland

*Mutual aid societies are local volunteer groups that share resources and services; co-ops are businesses owned and managed by their workers; credit unions are banks owned by and operated for the benefit of those who use them.