Skip to main content

Sustainable welfare and optimum population size

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to estimate the level of sustainable welfare, namely a level of consumption that can be enjoyed by all future generations. Based on available measures of the ecological footprint and biocapacity and assuming an acceptable level of per capita consumption, we estimate the maximum level of world population, which will allow that level of consumption without damaging the natural productive capacity of the earth. Also based on a criterion of the ability of each country to feed its people, we estimate the maximum size of population for the fifty most populated countries. It turns out that a few countries are underpopulated (Argentina, Canada, Russia, etc.), but most are overpopulated (China, India, Japan, etc.). We conclude by emphasizing the need for an ecumenical effort to educate and inform people about the need to reduce world population.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. The growth rate regressions against time (t = 1, 2, …, 53) give the following results:

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\text{GWP}}_{\text{gr}} = \mathop {5.068}\limits_{12.4} - \mathop {0.057}\limits_{4.47} t} & {\bar{R}^{2} = 0.28} & {{\text{obs}} = 53} \\ {{\text{POP}}_{\text{gr}} = \mathop {2.143}\limits_{53.1} - \mathop {0.019}\limits_{14.7} t} & {\bar{R}^{2} = 0.81} & {{\text{obs}} = 53} \\ \end{array}.$$

    The linear trends in Fig. 1 are based on these regressions. For the data used in these estimations, see Table 3.

    We have also estimated the same regressions using five year moving averages to avoid the effects of outlying observations. The resulting regression equations are practically the same, and the two growth rates will be equal (0.68) in 2038.

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\text{GWP}}_{\text{gr}} = \mathop {5.089}\limits_{22.4} - \mathop {0.059}\limits_{8.12} t} & {\bar{R}^{2} = 0.57} & {{\text{obs}} = 49} \\ {{\text{POP}}_{\text{gr}} = \mathop {2.222}\limits_{96.4} - \mathop {0.021}\limits_{28.3} t} & {\bar{R}^{2} = 0.94} & {{\text{obs}} = 49} \\ \end{array}.$$
  2. Actually two series for L are given in Fig. 2. The first, L 1, is compiled by the Earth Policy Institute and the second, L 2, by the Global Footprint Network. The two series present some small differences in the yearly values, but they show a similar trend. For our regressions, we use the series given by the Earth Policy Institute.

  3. Similar results are received if L 2 is used instead of L 1. The relation between L 1 and L 2 is given by L 1 = 0.94 L 2 with R 2 = 0.997, see Fig. 2.

  4. Worldometers (2015).

  5. For a review and a categorization of ideas on population, see Panayotou (2000).

  6. Grounds for concern on overpopulation are raised by many researchers in the field of ecological economics. For an overview, see Alcott (2012), who argues that curbing population growth should be actively included in policy agendas of all countries.

  7. This is already evident in many regions of the world. The same is true for wild animals whose habitat is continuously shrinking, see, e.g., Stein, Adams and Kutner (2000).

  8. It is reported that nearly 40 % (80 million) of pregnancies every year are unintended, see Singh et al. (2009, p. 52), and Engelman (2010).

  9. Most organized churches seem to share a myopic view on this matter. For example, in his May 2015 Encyclical letter (Vatican 2015), Pope Francis writes “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion” and “demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development; to blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”

  10. This program was called “Protein Foods, Environment, Technology and Society” (PROFETAS). Its aim was to develop meat alternatives with low energy, land, and other input requirements.

References

  • Aiking, H., de Boer, J., Helms, M., Niemeijer, D., Zhu, X., van Ierland, E. C., & de Groot, R. S. (2006). Environmental sustainability. Chapter 2. In H. Aiking, J. de Boer, & J. Vereijken (Eds.), Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? (pp. 23–50). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alcott, B. (2012). Population matters in ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 80, 109–120. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Dietetic Association. (2009). Position paper: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7), 1266–1282. (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, & Rackham, H. (1932). Aristotle: Politics. Loeb Classical Library No. 264. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

  • Arrhenius, G. (2000). An impossibility theorem for the welfarist axiologies. Economics and Philosophy, 16(2), 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius, G., Ryberg, J., & Tannjo, T. (2014). The repugnant conclusion. In Zalta E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edition). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/repugnant-conclusion. Last accessed Oct 3, 2014.

  • Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 279–286. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boserup, E. (1975). The impact of population growth on agricultural output. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89(2), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boserup, E. (1996). Development theory: An analytical framework and selected applications. Population and Development Review, 22(3), 505–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T. M., & Campbell, T. C. (2008). The benefits of integrating nutrition into clinical medicine. Israel Medical Association Journal, 10, 730–732. (October).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1995). How many people can the earth support?. New York: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (2005). Human population grows up. Scientific American, August issue.

  • Cole, M. A. (1999). Limits to growth, sustainable development and environmental Kuznets curves: An examination of the environmental impact of economic development. Sustainable Development, 7(2), 87–97. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1719(199905)7:2<87:AID-SD102>3.0.CO;2-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G., Ehrlich, A. H., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1994). Optimum human population size. Population and Environment, 15(6), 469–475. doi:10.1007/BF02211719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E., & Townsend, K. N. (1993). Sustainable growth: An impossibility theorem. In H. E. Daly & K. N. Townsend (Eds.), Valuing the Earth: Economics, ecology, ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Gregori, T. R. (1987). Resources are not; they become: An institutional theory. Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3), 1241–1263. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4225924.

  • Earth Policy Institute. (2010). Humanity’s ecological footprint dataset, 1961–2007. Available at http://www.earth-policy.org/data_center/C26. Last accessed Oct 3, 2014.

  • Ehrlich, P., & Holdren, J. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171, 1212–1217.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P., & Holdren, J. (1972). Impact of population growth. In R. G. Riker (Ed.), Population, resources and the environment (pp. 365–377). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelman, R. (2010). Transforming cultures: From consumerism to sustainability. State of the World: Worldwatch Institute. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products. Ecological Indicators, 12, 392–402. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshel, G., & Martin, P. A. (2006). Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interactions, 10, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, N. (2010). Human race will be extinct within 100 years claims leading scientist. Daily Mail, June 8.

  • Gerland, P., Raftery, A. E., Ševčíková, H., et al. (2014). World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science, 346(6206), 234–237. doi:10.1126/science.1257469. (October 10).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Footprint Network. (2013). National footprint accounts, 2011 edition. Available online at http://www.footprintnetwork.org. Accessed and used under licence. Last accessed Jan 27, 2014.

  • Harvard School of Public Health. (2011). Harvard researchers launch Healthy Eating Plate. Guide to eating a healthy meal based on latest science addresses shortcomings in U.S. government’s MyPlate. Available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-eating-plate/. Last accessed Apr 25, 2014.

  • Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21, 35–48. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’ Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52. doi:10.1002/sd.244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1963). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. Essays in persuasion (pp. 358–373). New York: WW Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, T. P. (2013). The world budget constraint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(6), 1543–1553. doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9460-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., Butz, W., Kc, S., Sanderson, W. C., & Scherbov, S. (2014a). Population growth: Peak probability. Science, 346(6209), 561. doi:10.1126/science.346.6209.561-a. (October 31).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., Butz, W. P., & Samir, K. C. (Eds.). (2014b). World population and human capital in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. (Series: energy and health, #5). Lancet, 370, 1253–1263. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1970). In D. Winch (ed.) Principles of political economy. Pelican Classics (Penguin).

  • Nadiri, M. I., & Prucha, I. R. (1996). Estimation of the depreciation rate of physical and R&D capital in the US total manufacturing sector. Economic Inquiry, 34(1), 43–56. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1996.tb01363.x. (January).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayotou, T. (2000). Population and environment. Working Paper No. 054, Center for International Development at Harvard University (CID), July.

  • Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. (2012). World overpopulation. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(2), 151–152. doi:10.1007/s10668-011-9336-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, E., et al. (2004). Water resources, agriculture and the environment. BioScience, 54(10), 909–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecarsky, J., & Pimentel, M. (1994). Natural resources and an optimum human population. Population and Environment, 15(5), 347–369. doi:10.1007/BF02208317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (Eds.). (2008). Food, energy, and society (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Whitecraft, M., Scott, Z. R., Zhao, L., Satkiewicz, P., Scott, T. J., et al. (2010). Will limited land, water and energy control human population numbers in the future? Human Ecology, 38(5), 599–611. doi:10.1007/s10745-008-9184-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Williamson, S., Alexander, C. E., Gonzalez-Pagan, O., Kontak, C., & Mulkey, S. E. (2008). Reducing energy inputs in the US food system. Human Ecology, 36, 459–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PROFETAS (Protein Foods, Environment, Technology and Society) Programme. Available at www.profetas.nl. Last accessed Sept 29, 2014.

  • Pseiridis, A. (2012). Hunger and the externalities of dietary preferences: Demand-side considerations of the current dietary paradigm. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 10(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–131. doi:10.1177/095624789200400212. (Spring).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schade, C., & Pimentel, D. (2010). Population crash: Prospects of famine in the twenty-first century. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(2), 245–262. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9192-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, F., Luksch, U., Steinbach, N., Cabeca, J., & Hanauer J. (2006). Ecological footprint and biocapacity. Working Papers and Studies, European Commission.

  • Singh, S., Wulf, D., Hussain, R., Bankole, A., & Sedgh, G. (2009). Abortion worldwide: A decade of uneven progress. Alan Guttmacher Institute. ISBN:978-1-934387-03-0.

  • Solow, R. M. (1974). The economics of resources or the resources of economics. American Economic Review, 64(2), 1–14, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May.

  • Stein, B. A., Adams, J. S., & Kutner, L. S. (2000). Precious heritage: The status of biodiversity in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2001). World population monitoring: population, environment, and development. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA. (2015). Scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory report to the Secreatary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. First Print (for public consultation until May 8th), February. Available at http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/pdfs/scientific-report-of-the-2015-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee.pdf. Last accessed June 18, 2015.

  • Valentinov, V. (2014). The complexity-sustainability trade-off in Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, 14–22. doi:10.1002/sres.2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatican. (2015). Encyclical letter “Laudato si’” of the Holy Father Francis on care for our common home. Vatican Press. Given in Rome on 24th May. Available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. Last accessed July 1, 2015.

  • World Bank. (2014). World development indicators. Last accessed Sept 22, 2014.

  • Worldometers. (2015). Current world population. Available at http://www.worldometers.info/. Last accessed July 2, 2015.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to unknown reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions, to colleagues for useful discussions, and to Ms Genevieve Gorgos for discussion and linguistic improvements. Also, thanks are due to the Earth Policy Institute and the Global Footprint Network for providing the data used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasia Pseiridis.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Population growth, GWP growth, ecological footprint to biocapacity (L), 1960–2013

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lianos, T.P., Pseiridis, A. Sustainable welfare and optimum population size. Environ Dev Sustain 18, 1679–1699 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5

Keywords

  • Population
  • Sustainable welfare
  • Ecological footprint
  • Biocapacity