It’s 2026, and some environmentalists still believe population control is beneficial to environmental stewardship. They couldn’t be more wrong.
In a forthcoming Sustainable Development study titled “Achieve Sustainability by Easing Population to 4 Billion by 2200,” a group of scientists argues the world must reverse population growth, down to four billion people or less, by 2200 to achieve sustainability. The abstract justifies this bizarre proposal as follows:
The past century of massive increases in human population and resource use has seen many undesirable environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change. But a research gap exists, as the ultimate causes are often not described with precision or mentioned at all. In this study, metrics of biodiversity, consumption, and pollution show extremely strong correlations when charted against human population size and its per capita impacts. We describe causal mechanisms for these correlations. Then, using available data, we show that slowing and gradually reversing population growth to ∼4 billion or less by 2200, while moderating per capita impacts, is the path toward sustainability.
By doing this, the journal argues the perceived benefits deliver “habitat recovery and conservation of wild species, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, reduced conflict over resources, and the reduction of global poverty.”
This mirrors the Malthusian environmentalism espoused by the late Paul Ehrlich, who died this past spring. The Stanford professor famously argued for population control. Ehrlich, like the study’s authors, also argued for population caps. In a 2018 interview, Ehrlich expressed support for capping the global population at 1.5 to 2 billion.
“Population growth, along with over-consumption per capita, is driving civilisation over the edge: billions of people are now hungry or micronutrient malnourished, and climate disruption is killing people,” Ehrlich told The Guardian in 2018.
The scientific journal that published this study, Sustainable Development, is UK-based and founded in 1993. It claims the papers it publishes are aligned with “one or more of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”—referring to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015. The UN describes this as “ a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future,” along with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among its 17 SDGs are phasing out oil, coal, and gas, and locking up at least 30% of public lands and waters for natural protection—not conservation.
What the late Ehrlich and his contemporaries glaringly miss is this: Today, we are experiencing superabundance—not scarcity—with 8.3 billion people (and growing) worldwide.
The 2026 Simon Abundance Index, a project of the Cato Institute, found the Earth is 536.4% more abundant today than it was in 1980, when accounting for population growth and resource abundance. The Index derives from the work of the late Julian Simon, a University of Maryland professor whose research found that an increase in global population positively correlated with resource abundance.
Simon also famously won a wager against the aforementioned Paul Ehrlich in 1980, in what became known as the Simon–Ehrlich wager. They bet on the future price of Ehrlich’s preferred commodities: a basket of copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten with a 1980 valuation at $1,000. By October 1990, the price of this basket depreciated—not increased. As a result, Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $575.07.
This flawed study is giving license to climate anxiety, or “heightened emotional, mental or physical distress” in response to changes in the climate. Equally troubling is that this perceived distress about the environment is convincing young Americans to forgo having children. This is tragic.
The bottom line is this: Having children isn’t detrimental to the environment. If one cares about the natural world, why not pass down your values and cultivate the next generation of conservationists? This is why an abundance—not population control—is a winning solution.
To learn more, read Independent Women’s special report on Energy Abundance.