Halving the world’s population over the next two centuries could dramatically reduce pressure on the planet, according to researchers who argue that a slower, voluntary decline could help restore ecosystems and curb climate damage.

The proposal may sound like something from Avengers: Infinity War, where Thanos wipes out half of all life in an instant. But scientists behind the study stress that their vision is the exact opposite: a gradual and just reduction in population, alongside lower consumption.

Humanity’s explosive growth is putting the planet under pressure

The global population has surged from around two billion in the 1920s to about 8.3 billion today, driven by longer lives, falling child mortality, improved living standards and wider access to education and rights.

Researchers writing in Sustainable Development argue that biodiversity loss, resource consumption and pollution are closely linked to population size. They warn that humanity’s combined impact on natural systems has become unsustainable.

The target: four billion people by 2200

The scientists suggest gradually reducing the global population to around four billion or fewer by 2200. They argue this could ease demand for resources while allowing damaged habitats and wildlife populations to recover.

The benefits could extend beyond the environment, with lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced pollution and less competition over resources. Researchers also point to potential economic gains as populations decline.

Kerala offers a glimpse of the strategy

The study cites India’s Kerala state as an example of how population growth can be slowed without coercion. Higher education, greater female empowerment, later marriage and widespread voluntary family planning helped reduce population growth while living standards improved.

Researchers argue that the lesson is not about forcing people to have fewer children, but about expanding choices and opportunities. High-income populations also consume vastly more energy per person than those in poorer countries, meaning population numbers are only one part of the environmental equation.

A slower, smaller world could ease the strain

The researchers say a population of around four billion by 2200 could protect natural habitats, reduce emissions and pollution, ease resource conflicts and help conserve wildlife.

Their central argument is blunt: rather than waiting for environmental crises to force change, humanity could gradually and voluntarily reduce its footprint — giving the planet a chance to recover without anything remotely resembling Thanos’s fictional snap.

Study reveals halving human population gradually could help Earth

Global population growth has significantly slowed down, except in Africa.

Halving is a good idea ... start wth the scientist.

49 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Halving is a good idea ... start wth the scientist.

<deleted> you. I'm a scientist. Why do you want to murder me?

Halving the population is simplistic. Which part of the population has to die or not get to live?

Addressing population size through birthrates will kill your society in about 3 generations, ie China.

The main challenge of population growth is food, or energy demand.

Between 0 and 15 years, a child requires 26 million kcal. We can further model that by age; a baby has a lower calorific requirement than a 15 year old. But both are nothing but consumers. But they will both become producers. Assuming death at 90 years, a 65 year old will consume 19 million kcal. They will always be a consumer. Adulthood has a cost of 44 million kcal.

Assuming arable agriculture, then about 9 quadrillion kcal is produced each year. Based on the current global population mix, annual demand is about 6.6 quadrillion kcal. There is not that much slack. If we address population size by reducing the number of young people, through birth control, then eventually you will see falls in agricultural outputs because there are less farmers. Countries get away with that right now because there is always another country with more farmers, hence China massively imports soy from predominantly catholic, and fecking like bunnies, Brazil. Otherwise, you get away with it for a while by artificially boosting yields through fertilisers (but blokes like you want to murder the scientists, so you're going to run out of new fertilizers, pesticides, genetically improved crops). Eventually you won't be able to innovate through mechanisations, because your best engineers are all retired and your pool of would be engineers (kids) has declined.

So the alternative is that other part of the non-productive population, the old. We only keep them alive out of sentimentality, and all they do is cost us money and food. And they feel entitled to do that.

If you have to murder anyone to solve demands due to population growth, kill the old, not the scientists. Soylent Green was right.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume improvement to crop yields is elastic; that there is no upper constraint due to technological innovation, and that all the innovation is carried out by 15-65 year olds. In this version of Logan's Run, you get to live to 70 years, before being topped (solving worries about pensions etc, eliminating the vast majority of chronic healthcare). Then the population is not constrained by food supply. We won't starve. But water becomes the next limiter. If we consider water' we can make it, using extraterrestrial material, but probably the planet could sustain 30-40 billion before things become problematic again, maybe even 50 billion. By then, we will collectively ascend to the next energy plain.

If technological progress is allowed to remain indefinitely elastic, population itself may cease to have a conventional "carrying capacity". The limiting factor becomes the amount of energy and technology available to manufacture an increasingly artificial environment. In other words, the question has moved from "How many people can Earth feed?" to "How many people can an industrial civilisation maintain?"

But don't kill the scientists, so you can live a life of religious fanaticism, ISIS style.

Hahahah save the earth. I love this. Apart from breaking our planet in 2 there is nothing we could ever do that the earth wont recover from.

Billions of years of damage and recoveries. 5 or so mass extinction events......save the earth....what a hoot.

It's a little bit late for this idea, innit it

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Halving is a good idea ... start wth the scientist.

<deleted> you. I'm a scientist. Why do you want to murder me?

Halving the population is simplistic. Which part of the population has to die or not get to live?

Addressing population size through birthrates will kill your society in about 3 generations, ie China.

The main challenge of population growth is food, or energy demand.

Between 0 and 15 years, a child requires 26 million kcal. We can further model that by age; a baby has a lower calorific requirement than a 15 year old. But both are nothing but consumers. But they will both become producers. Assuming death at 90 years, a 65 year old will consume 19 million kcal. They will always be a consumer. Adulthood has a cost of 44 million kcal.

Assuming arable agriculture, then about 9 quadrillion kcal is produced each year. Based on the current global population mix, annual demand is about 6.6 quadrillion kcal. There is not that much slack. If we address population size by reducing the number of young people, through birth control, then eventually you will see falls in agricultural outputs because there are less farmers. Countries get away with that right now because there is always another country with more farmers, hence China massively imports soy from predominantly catholic, and fecking like bunnies, Brazil. Otherwise, you get away with it for a while by artificially boosting yields through fertilisers (but blokes like you want to murder the scientists, so you're going to run out of new fertilizers, pesticides, genetically improved crops). Eventually you won't be able to innovate through mechanisations, because your best engineers are all retired and your pool of would be engineers (kids) has declined.

So the alternative is that other part of the non-productive population, the old. We only keep them alive out of sentimentality, and all they do is cost us money and food. And they feel entitled to do that.

If you have to murder anyone to solve demands due to population growth, kill the old, not the scientists. Soylent Green was right.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume improvement to crop yields is elastic; that there is no upper constraint due to technological innovation, and that all the innovation is carried out by 15-65 year olds. In this version of Logan's Run, you get to live to 70 years, before being topped (solving worries about pensions etc, eliminating the vast majority of chronic healthcare). Then the population is not constrained by food supply. We won't starve. But water becomes the next limiter. If we consider water' we can make it, using extraterrestrial material, but probably the planet could sustain 30-40 billion before things become problematic again, maybe even 50 billion. By then, we will collectively ascend to the next energy plain.

If technological progress is allowed to remain indefinitely elastic, population itself may cease to have a conventional "carrying capacity". The limiting factor becomes the amount of energy and technology available to manufacture an increasingly artificial environment. In other words, the question has moved from "How many people can Earth feed?" to "How many people can an industrial civilisation maintain?"

But don't kill the scientists, so you can live a life of religious fanaticism, ISIS style

Thats an awfully big rant from someone who completely missed the point of the comment he was replying to.

But carry on.

4 hours ago, bannork said:

Halving the world’s population over the next two centuries could dramatically reduce pressure on the planet, according to researchers who argue that a slower, voluntary decline could help restore ecosystems and curb climate damage.

I'm happy to support this initiative, no problem at all with removing myself from the world's population within the next two centuries.

2 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

If you have to murder anyone to solve demands due to population growth, kill the old, not the scientists. Soylent Green was right.

LOL , what age did you have as the cut off point ?

Soylent Green reference is diabolical ....

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

<deleted> you. I'm a scientist. Why do you want to murder me?

Halving the population is simplistic. Which part of the population has to die or not get to live?

Addressing population size through birthrates will kill your society in about 3 generations, ie China.

The main challenge of population growth is food, or energy demand.

Between 0 and 15 years, a child requires 26 million kcal. We can further model that by age; a baby has a lower calorific requirement than a 15 year old. But both are nothing but consumers. But they will both become producers. Assuming death at 90 years, a 65 year old will consume 19 million kcal. They will always be a consumer. Adulthood has a cost of 44 million kcal.

Assuming arable agriculture, then about 9 quadrillion kcal is produced each year. Based on the current global population mix, annual demand is about 6.6 quadrillion kcal. There is not that much slack. If we address population size by reducing the number of young people, through birth control, then eventually you will see falls in agricultural outputs because there are less farmers. Countries get away with that right now because there is always another country with more farmers, hence China massively imports soy from predominantly catholic, and fecking like bunnies, Brazil. Otherwise, you get away with it for a while by artificially boosting yields through fertilisers (but blokes like you want to murder the scientists, so you're going to run out of new fertilizers, pesticides, genetically improved crops). Eventually you won't be able to innovate through mechanisations, because your best engineers are all retired and your pool of would be engineers (kids) has declined.

So the alternative is that other part of the non-productive population, the old. We only keep them alive out of sentimentality, and all they do is cost us money and food. And they feel entitled to do that.

If you have to murder anyone to solve demands due to population growth, kill the old, not the scientists. Soylent Green was right.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume improvement to crop yields is elastic; that there is no upper constraint due to technological innovation, and that all the innovation is carried out by 15-65 year olds. In this version of Logan's Run, you get to live to 70 years, before being topped (solving worries about pensions etc, eliminating the vast majority of chronic healthcare). Then the population is not constrained by food supply. We won't starve. But water becomes the next limiter. If we consider water' we can make it, using extraterrestrial material, but probably the planet could sustain 30-40 billion before things become problematic again, maybe even 50 billion. By then, we will collectively ascend to the next energy plain.

If technological progress is allowed to remain indefinitely elastic, population itself may cease to have a conventional "carrying capacity". The limiting factor becomes the amount of energy and technology available to manufacture an increasingly artificial environment. In other words, the question has moved from "How many people can Earth feed?" to "How many people can an industrial civilisation maintain?"

But don't kill the scientists, so you can live a life of religious fanaticism, ISIS style.

News Flash: the planet doesn't need any help, though can't say the same about humans.

Fortunately, many are choosing to not have kids, and the result is glorious. I just don't know why falling birthrates are causing a panic, in my opinion it's the best thing to happen to this planet in centuries. We can barely sustain our current population, and the quality of life is dropping dramatically for billions of people.

Many say AI is the answer but I think it's going to move mankind backwards dramatically. Falling GDP is really not a big deal as it's a very overrated metric. AI will end up eliminating a lot of jobs anyway, so we would likely end up with very significant unemployment. In reality the last thing in the world this planet needs is more babies at this time.

Not to mention barely any fish left in the seas, denuded forests, and countless other environmental issues caused by 8 billion people on the planet without much sensitivity to nature, and truly ridiculous climate deniers like Donald Trump, who is amongst a huge group of ignoramus fools who have likely never even been to a national park, and dislike and deeply disrespect nature and all of its glories.

Many behave as if we have 7 alternative planets to move to, as soon as we foul this one beyond repair.

One more data point. You're the carbon they want to eliminate.

Feel free to volunteer if you think that's a good plan. I wonder if they'll be showing a serene, relaxing movie on the way in?

I think all those US AI billionaires are working on it, but they of course won't be included in the cull. They already have their New Zealand bunkers built.

There are 2 ways to depopulate the Planet: kill the living or prevent the living.

• The first one has been around for a long time - wars.

• The second one is more novel, where people are engineered not to have offspring.

Both lead to the same result, and both have the same challenge - who decides who goes and who stays, and difficulty in controlling that during the purge.

Allow women to chose how many children to have, if any.

Allow women to access education.

Allow women to control their own finances.

Then a lower fertility rate, which I believe is desirable, leading to significant population decline is far more likely to occur without any coercion.

Why has this thread become about euthanasia which is definitely not alluded to in the article? I can only assume people wish to troll the topic.

4 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Why has this thread become about euthanasia which is definitely not alluded to in the article? I can only assume people wish to troll the topic.

The Nazis didn't publicly allude to their real plan, either.

8 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

Global population growth has significantly slowed down, except in Africa.

I t needs to slow down in SE Asia. Bangladesh, Pakistan are still out of control. Slowing still means that the Indian population increases by the tens of millions every year.

3 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Allow women to chose how many children to have, if any.

Allow women to access education.

Allow women to control their own finances.

Then a lower fertility rate, which I believe is desirable, leading to significant population decline is far more likely to occur without any coercion.

Also add access to healthcare, health/reproductive education.

Very specifically vaccinations, primary health services for expectant mothers and their infants, contraception, clean water and essential nutrition.

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

The Nazis didn't publicly allude to their real plan, either.

Heads up boys and girls, the Nazis have arrived in the thread.

8 hours ago, bannork said:

Halving the world’s population over the next two centuries could dramatically reduce pressure on the planet, according to researchers who argue that a slower, voluntary decline could help restore ecosystems and curb climate damage.

Good, then let’s have all who believe this sacrifice themselves for the sake of the planet.

Not a surprise. some of the underlying maths are pretty straight forward.

Halving humanity is not enough.

Sterilization is the humane way to go.

And they are already working on it with all the chemicals in food,

and vaccines.

Hopefully AI will do the job once it doesn't need humans.

2 minutes ago, gk10012001 said:

Not a surprise. some of the underlying maths are pretty straight forward.

It depends which math.

Does it calculate on the basis of average resource consumption for the whole population or resource consumption for specific populations, specific groups of people.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Heads up boys and girls, the Nazis have arrived in the thread.

Feels weird to invoke the Nazis on a thread that's not about MAGA, doesn't it?

Only lefties area allowed...

Another so called cabal of nameless, faceless, expert scientists (read : eugenicists) weighing in with their expert analysis.

OK guys, lead by example and vasectomise yourselves.

Beside that, nobody knows the exact population of earth. Dart throwing at its finest but it makes for good psy ops.

It's already happened, you just have to give the 'clot shot' time to do its work.

It might take a few years, but it's coming.

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

Feels weird to invoke the Nazis on a thread that's not about MAGA, doesn't it?

Only lefties area allowed...

It’s more weird that you thought to insert Nazis and get all defensive when called out on your choice to do so.

1 minute ago, hughrection said:

It's already happened, you just have to give the 'clot shot' time to do its work.

It might take a few years, but it's coming.

Clot you say.

Hopefully some person or persons with means, does not release some virus, or whatever that kills 50 per cent either randomly or based on some genetic or racial trait. Or they do that thinking they are like Thanos in the movies and helping things. I refer you to an old but good sci fiction book called Tuff Voyaging. A bit dated but a good book. Kodos the execution episode from the original star trek series too