Would the World have been Better off with Millions instead of Billions?

The Human Population's Role in Sustainability

Throughout most of human history, the total population numbered around 500 million. This number is often perceived as a reasonable approximation of the Earth's sustainable carrying capacity for our species. Since then, we have seen numerous changes, but one fact remains unequivocal: we are using natural resources faster than nature can replenish them. This raises the intriguing question: would the world be a better place today if our population were restricted to the millions instead of the billions?

Strengths and Weaknesses

It is important to recognize that the world is not simply black and white. Just as wars and pandemics continue to pose threats, the inconsiderate use of natural resources by humankind continues to cause severe environmental damage. There is also the perpetual tension between innovation and its potential negative impacts, like the significant damage to the biosphere through advancements in medicine, among other industries.

During Neolithic times, while the world might have been simpler, it is debatable whether it was inherently better. The drastic advancements brought about by a larger population, including the development of civilizations and significant contributions to art and science, have undoubtedly shaped our world for the better. However, this progress has come at a cost to the environment and biodiversity. Thus, the balance between population size and environmental impact is a complex and nuanced issue.

Opportunities and Challenges for Small Populations

While a smaller population would certainly reduce the strain on natural resources and the environment, it does not guarantee a utopian existence. Historically, only the ultra-wealthy had a life worth living during the times when population levels were much lower. Expansion and innovation were driven by growing populations, which might not have been as necessary or even feasible with a much smaller base of people.

For instance, if all Muslims had moved to Pakistan after the partition, it is possible that India might not have the same level of global influence or wealth today. This example illustrates how a larger population can drive advancements and spread of wealth, though it comes with the environmental and social challenges we face today.

Reducing population inconsiderateness could lead to less environmental destruction. In this scenario, a global population in the millions could still create civilizations, develop art, and advance in science, but with significantly less pressure on the rest of the life on our planet. There is a critical need for us to stop the selfish degradation of the environment, as it is reaching a critical point.

Concluding Thoughts

While it might seem appealing to revert back to a population of millions to preserve the environment, the reality is more complex. On a timescale of a human life, the destruction of the vast majority of us would undoubtedly be seen as a disaster. However, from a geological perspective, neither scenario truly matters. The focus should be on finding a sustainable balance between population growth and environmental preservation to ensure a better future for humanity.