The “depopulation bad” framing - while helpful for engagement - misses key longtermist concerns in my opinion. The real question isn’t just how many people exist—but whether humanity (and other life) can flourish sustainably within planetary boundaries.
We’re already in ecological overshoot, degrading biosphere systems essential to all sentient life. Climate change is just one facet of a more complex set of systems facing challenges. A smaller, well-supported population—achieved via voluntary, rights-based policies—could reduce existential risk by stabilizing Earth’s life-support systems, supporting biodiversity, and improving welfare per capita.
Yes, demographic decline poses economic and institutional challenges. But these are solvable. Civilizational collapse from ecological breakdown is not.
Optimizing for total population without sufficient ecological resilience risks long-term value. We should aim for a population trajectory that preserves planetary habitability over the long run.
The “depopulation bad” framing - while helpful for engagement - misses key longtermist concerns in my opinion. The real question isn’t just how many people exist—but whether humanity (and other life) can flourish sustainably within planetary boundaries.
We’re already in ecological overshoot, degrading biosphere systems essential to all sentient life. Climate change is just one facet of a more complex set of systems facing challenges. A smaller, well-supported population—achieved via voluntary, rights-based policies—could reduce existential risk by stabilizing Earth’s life-support systems, supporting biodiversity, and improving welfare per capita.
Yes, demographic decline poses economic and institutional challenges. But these are solvable. Civilizational collapse from ecological breakdown is not.
Optimizing for total population without sufficient ecological resilience risks long-term value. We should aim for a population trajectory that preserves planetary habitability over the long run.
Thanks for the discussion!
M