Most of the problems confronting the world come down to population growth. But where women are given the choice, they limit the number of children they have.
There’s no simple “yes” or “no” answer to whether we should produce more children when Earth is in such dire straits.
As living standards rise, we could see smaller populations but much bigger ecological impacts.
For many environmentalists, overpopulation is a real concern. But the planet will benefit more from tackling overconsumption by rich countries.
Arguments about population growth are unhelpful, distracting and often racist.
People who say they don’t want children are often told they’ll change their mind. The authors of a new study found otherwise.
A 1972 report warned that unchecked consumption could crater the world economy by 2100. Fifty years and much debate later, can humanity innovate quickly enough to avoid that fate?
If we want a liveable future for our grandchildren is it ethical to reduce the number of people being born into that world?
Humanity is destroying Earth’s ability to support complex life. But coming to grips with the magnitude of the problem is hard, even for experts.
Our species has far exceeded its fair share of the planetary bounty, and Brown is right to call for the global population to peak.
Extinction Rebellion impostors have called humans ‘a disease’.
Jane Goodall’s comments at Davos may seem harmless, but they reflect a dangerous misreading of the climate crisis that needs to be challenged.
Population growth rates pose a lingering challenge to development efforts on the continent.
There are plenty other good reasons to stabilise the global population.
Several companies are trying to develop life extension methods that could enable some people to live far longer. There are some ethical dilemmas.
Many people think a population policy is about control – like the one-child policy in China, for instance. But modern population policies are about population-well-being.
Too often, talk of population and sustainability becomes emotionally loaded and conflict ridden.
People think migrants are draining Australia’s resources. But if we were to cut down on migration, it would also make sense to introduce policies that limit numbers of international tourists.
In the 70s, Whitlam tried to build new, big cities. But this was too costly. Now the most viable solution for Australia’s population woes is to make existing cities bigger.
Fifty years ago biologist Paul Ehrlich published ‘The Population Bomb,’ an apocalyptic warning that overcrowding would lead to wars and famine. Here’s what the book got right and wrong.