Would we be better off with fewer humans?

By The New York Times | Source: United States Census Bureau

It seems the US population is not actually shrinking, but it is not growing very fast. That makes me happy. Would that the entire world's human population grow so slowly - or even begin to shrink.

When I moved to Mankato MN in 1989, the population was around 30,000 people. Today it is around 44,000. The surrounding area has grown as well. The business community and city government see that as a huge win. Personally, I liked the smaller size. I could visit with the mayor. I knew all the administrators in the school district. I did not have to book a dinner reservation months in advance at popular restaurants. The bike trails were never terribly busy. There was no rush hour. But the chamber of commerce and others always promoted growth and celebrated when a new business moved into town or a new housing subdivision was planned. I suspect Mankato’s philosophy is the rule, not the exception - celebrate "growth."

I suppose if I were a business person, I too would celebrate having more people move into the area. More people wanting to buy my bicycles. Longer lines at my Dairy Queen. Greater sales at Target and Best Buy (which might also lead to better return on my shares of stock in these companies). There would also be a greater supply of labor. And if I remember correctly, the greater the supply (or lower the demand), the cheaper the cost. This surely applies to workers as well as motorcycles.

I started thinking about the benefits of a smaller population from a very selfish perspective - shorter lines, less crowded parks, easier access to DisneyWorld, cheaper used cars. Going to National Parks with my children 20 years ago was a much more enjoyable experience than going with my grandchildren to today’s parks - no fault of the grandsons. As an environmentalist, it is tempting to look at the world's resources as a zero-sum situation - the world only has so much potable water, arable land, rare minerals. Are we as individuals better off dividing them among 3 billion or 10 billion of us? What population makes it more likely more of the world's natural lands stay natural?

At some point, people will start thinking of population in terms of quality instead of quantity. On a personal basis, it seems to make sense in today’s world to have two college-educated children than a half dozen unskilled sons and daughters. We just don’t need all those kids to help bring in the crops any more or to replace those that die in infancy.

I hope families, towns, and countries as themselves do we always need more people- or should we be striving for happier, healthier people? Bigger is not always better.