The recent death of Paul Ehrlich reminds us that his crackpot overpopulation theories still are with us, even as they are being regularly discredited...
Authored by Lipton Matthews: In recent years, a strand of environmental thinking has emerged that places population at the center of ecological crises. Some activists, including figures associated with the Extinction Rebellion and the Stop Having Kids Movements Movement in the United Kingdom and the United States have expressed anti-natalist views, arguing that choosing not to have children is a meaningful response to climate change. The reasoning is lucid and, at first glance, convincing: fewer people should mean less consumption, lower emissions, and more space for the natural world to recover.
Yet this argument becomes less compelling when examined more carefully. Depopulation, on its own, is neither a sufficient nor a reliable solution to environmental problems. Once questions of timing, infrastructure, and land use are considered, the connection between population decline and environmental improvement appears far more uncertain.
