Having Kids Probably Won't Destroy the Planet

An overpopulated planet is not necessarily doomed. What matters most is how those billions of people choose to live.

A few years ago, I attended a dinner party where a friend of the host launched into an exhaustive diatribe about the problem with “breeders.” In his view, couples with children are selfish, narcissistic, and irresponsible, contributing to overpopulation. What he didn’t know at the time was that I was expecting.

I’ve heard this opinion many times before. Several friends and academic colleagues vocally opt not to have kids in order to “save the planet.” To them, population numbers are a simple input and output equation in which more people create more problems. Thankfully, it takes more than math to understand the mechanisms that shift the balance of life on Earth.

Here’s the part that’s not up for debate: Some of the greatest challenges we face globally stem from our current predicament. Too many people are squandering ever more limited resources including food, water, energy, and more. Climate change exacerbates these problems.

Our numbers are on the rise. When I was born in 1980, the global population was approximately 4.5 billion people. Around 2050, we’ll have doubled that to nine billion. The world is getting increasingly crowded, but a bustling planet is not necessarily doomed. What matters most is how those billions of people choose to live.

Scientific models warning us about unchecked population growth have been around for hundreds of years, most notably from the reverend Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century who concluded that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”

More recently, a work that sparked ethical questions over whether couples ought to have children came in 1968 from Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich. His book, The Population Bomb, sounded an alarm that there would not be enough food to support humanity over coming decades. He predicted famines in the 1970s would kill hundreds of millions of people and only stringent birth control measures could be the solution. When The Population Bomb became a bestseller, overpopulation was dubbed the leading environmental crisis of our time and couples at home and abroad began to reconsider whether they would have children at all.

These dire predictions didn’t come to pass. Five decades after The Population Bomb’s publication, average calories consumed per person have risen in populous countries such as India and China. The Green Revolution made it possible to grow more food so that where and when famines do occur today, they are largely the result of distributional shortcomings rather than an inadequate food supply.

Since the 1960s, global fertility rates—the number of live births per woman—have decreased dramatically, with no stringent birth control measures required. Scientists now predict that the human population will peak within this century, somewhere around 10 billion, before declining for the first time in modern history.  

I’m not going to suggest that the errors in previous population models were entirely due to being created by men, but we now know that those responsible (mostly) men didn’t anticipate the way women would opt to have fewer children when their circumstances changed.

During the last half-century, in both developed and developing nations, more women were educated, joined the labor force, and had access to birth control, making better family planning possible. Meanwhile, scientific innovations like antibiotics and vaccinations kept families healthier. As a result, women all over the world chose to have fewer children. The global fertility rate has fallen from close to five live births per woman in the 1960s to about 2.5 births today and will continue to decrease in the future. It remains high in places like sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia where child mortality is high and health conditions are poor.

Still, Ehrlich and his predecessors were not entirely wrong. We do face many real challenges, but not every person has the same impact on Earth. The real danger isn’t in sheer number of humans, but how specific individuals and societies use resources.

Consider global energy consumption, which is directly related to food, water, and climate change: On a per capita basis, the average Texan consumes about twice as much energy as the average American, four times as much energy as the average person in the United Kingdom, and eight times as much energy as the average person in China.

Presented by

Sheril Kirshenbaum is the director of The Energy Poll at The University of Texas at Austin and the author of two books, including Unscientific America. She previously worked in the Senate on energy, climate, and ocean policy.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Health

Just In