An ideal global population? (Venue: Online)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Online

Whilst we always meet in person, we are trialling an online edition for those who can’t make the face-to-face events in Cambridge. The zoom link will be visible below to those who have RSVP'd.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

We are limiting attendance in order to have an ideal number of 4-5 actual attendees on the day.

THE TOPIC: An ideal global population?

Thank you to Adam for preparing this week's topic. His original title was: Would the world be a better place with a much smaller population? but I had to trim it down to fit.

Imagine this scenario: the year is 1785 and an Armenian midwife discovered an effective herbal contraceptive. Her invention spread quickly around the world, and ever since, the global population has remained steady at 0.8 billion. How would the world be affected?

Potential upsides:

- The environment would be in a much better shape, with lower deforestation and lower biodiversity loss. Greenhouse gas levels would be lower, and far fewer resources depleted. Over-tourism would be much less of an issue.
- Many wars might have been avoided, as some are started in competition over land and resources.
- Likely better quality of life – less pressure on housing, better access to green spaces and fresh water.
- Reduced chances of the development and spread of diseases and pandemics.
- Most living or historical people from the last two centuries wouldn’t have been born. That potentially includes: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Simon Cowell.

Potential downsides:

- Most living or historical people from the last two centuries wouldn’t have been born. That potentially includes: Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Martin Luther King, Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela, Alexander Fleming, Maya Angelou, Simone de Beauvoir and Jason Statham.
- Consequently, many developments in sciences, technology, medicine, arts and culture would have happened later or not at all.

The world would undoubtedly be a very different place. If we agreed that the upsides outweighed the downsides, what would it mean for the current concern about the looming fertility crisis?

Please don’t let the fact that most of us wouldn’t be here put you off from turning up on Sunday.