Remembering Malthus II: Establishing sustainable population optimums

Remembering Malthus III: Implementing a global population reduction

“…This, of course, is a matter which has very much to do with a set of even more difficult projections, not so much about decreases in population size but rather about the Earth's long‐term sustainable and optimal carrying capacity: in other words, the “second half” of my central hypothesis (Smail, 2002, p. 296). Until convincing evidence is presented to the contrary, it would therefore seem prudent to adhere to the 2–3 billion “global optimum” articulated earlier (Smail, 2003).…”

“…Clearly, if the argument put forth here is reasonably accurate, and global population size does indeed show unmistakable evidence of greatly exceeding the Earth's optimal carrying capacity, it will be incumbent upon our species to take whatever humane steps might be appropriate and/or necessary to bring these divergent numbers into much greater congruence. Obviously, as developed earlier (Smail, 2002, 2003), considerable emphasis should be placed on such basic issues as reducing fertility levels, decreasing per capita consumption, and enhancing technological efficiencies, as well as implementing the appropriate political, economic, environmental, social, and ethical “structures and strategies” necessary to reach these goals. Special emphasis should also be directed toward: improving the social and educational status of women; reducing various other intragenerational inequities (e.g., political, economic, and social); implementing educational reforms that significantly enhance demographic and environmental “literacy;” bringing the world's major religions closer together in support of a clear and consistent position on demographic issues; and developing a much more sophisticated understanding (particularly among economists, political leaders, and “humanity at large”) of the finite ecological limits implicit in such concepts as “sustainability” and “optimality.”…”

“…In two earlier AJPA “News and Views” essays (Smail, 2002, 2003), I suggested that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On the one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers could easily reach 9 billion (or more) by the mid‐to‐late 21st century.…”

“…Having summarized a number of “inescapable realities” that the human species must soon confront (Smail, 2002), and having considered various difficulties in establishing rational and sustainable population optimums (Smail, 2003), this concluding essay articulates several suggestions relevant to the next logical step: how best to implement a very significant reduction in global human numbers over the next two or more centuries . It seems clear that this prolonged effort will require a demographic “shrinkage” of at least two‐thirds to three‐fourths, from an all but inevitable mid‐to‐late 21st century peak of 9–10 billion to a future “sustainable optimum” in the 2–3 billion range (or perhaps even fewer).…”

Reawakening Malthus: Empirical support for the Smail scenario

“…In a recent series of News and Views essays, Smail (2002, 2003a,b) broached the dilemmas faced by humanity as our population continues to grow by over 200,000 people per day. It can be shown that our burgeoning population also poses a dilemma, and indeed a severe threat, for numerous other species of plants and animals that get pushed aside in the wake of ever more humans.…”