Earth Day Presentation

Deadly Silence: Ignoring Overpopulation Risks the Future of Our Living Planet

Presented by Population Connection President and CEO John Seager

As our global population continues to grow, so do the pressures on our environment, natural resources, and climate. Yet, discussions about overpopulation still remain largely absent from mainstream sustainability conversations.

This Earth Day, Population Connection President and CEO John Seager joined us to discuss the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to stabilize global population growth. During his presentation, John highlighted rights-based solutions such as improving access to family planning, providing quality education for all, and promoting sustainable economies to shape a more balanced future for people and the planet. Following his presentation was a Q&A session with our Senior Analyst, Hannah Evans, who asked questions submitted by the audience.

Date: April 22nd, 2025

Q&A

Questions from the audience, with responses from Population Connection President John Seager

Excess food from the Americas, for now, covers deficits in Asia and Africa with an 8 billion world population. Will burning out and plowing under the rain forests cover the next 6.5 billion people in Asia and Africa and 1.5 billion worldwide by 2100?

Vaclav Smil’s book, How the World Really Works, provides a very cogent detailed analysis showing that, based on currently available technology, we cannot hope to feed the world without using vast amounts of fossil fuels. And we shouldn’t bet the future of our living planet on technologies that may or may not emerge.

Do you have any comments about Ezra Klein’s book “Abundance,” which argues that the left has erred by emphasizing scarcity instead of abundance?

I find Klein’s views on the topic to be thought-provoking. He is definitely on to something in terms of the excessive layers of process hampering our ability to get much of anything done. That said, the wider “scarcity versus abundance” debate seems to me to be a bit like arguing whether VHS or Betamax is the better recording technology. That discussion is obsolete.

Let’s focus on removing all the barriers that prevent women from achieving reproductive autonomy. Based on all available evidence, that will almost certainly result in much smaller families and population stabilization followed by a relatively gradual population decline. Certainly, we can figure out how to adapt to a less-crowded world. And that would be the key to abundance.

Is there any chance other nations, maybe even China, will pick up the slack for family planning cuts by the Trump administration?

China tends to think in terms of centuries and millennia, while capitalism, whatever merits it has, doesn’t seem to be able to think past the next quarterly earnings report. Indeed, China is capitalizing on Trump’s abandonment of our engagement around the world. Yet, given China’s complete inability to grasp the notion of personal empowerment, I tend to doubt that they will step in to support voluntary family planning.

As Trump’s policies toward USAID kick in Guatemala, countries like China are moving in to fill the void and expand their awareness. What impact do Trump’s foreign aid policies have on family planning initiatives?

Trump’s foreign aid policies are destroying 80 years worth of hard, frequently bipartisan work – although bipartisanship has been sadly lacking in recent decades when it comes to family planning. Guttmacher provides excellent data on the devastating harm being done to millions of women by Trump and his cadre.

Do Democrats have any strategies for winning back at least the House of Representatives in 2026?

Given where we find ourselves as a result of the 2024 elections, we should guard against rosy scenarios. But, there is strong evidence that a significant number of voters who supported Trump because of what he promised in terms of the economy are turning away from him. Having spent 20 years of my life in and around congressional politics, I can assert that now is the time for prospective candidates to start the incredibly hard work involved in winning elections. It’s never too early.

The Senate will be a tougher nut to crack. However, both directions have ample precedent for voters abandoning parties and candidates who don’t meet expectations. Suppose elections do turn in a more favorable direction. In that case, I hope we don’t repeat the terrible mistake of failing to listen to the millions of people who have too often been seen as collateral damage in a changing world. If we want them to stand up for us, we need to stand up for them. And we can’t go around imposing litmus tests.

What are the best strategies for opposing the current pronatalist movement?

They claim to be concerned about a shortage of workers due to lower fertility rates. Some of their proposals are frightening. Others are downright silly. We should call their bluff by demanding that they focus their efforts on improving the lives of children living in poverty. Right now, there are about 11 million American children trapped in poverty. Many of them will not grow up to be productive members of our community unless we are willing to invest to ensure they have access to excellent healthcare and education and do what we can to help foster stable families. 

Many self-described pronatalists seem to think that life begins at conception and ends at birth. We want a society where every single child is planned, wanted, loved, and has sufficient resources to grow up to be a mature, responsible, and productive person. If that happens, we will have a generation of people who make sensible decisions about when and whether to have children. 

What economic changes are required to accommodate a smaller and aging population?

We must adapt to a changing world. Here in the United States, we’ve done so from several centuries ago when we had a population of several million people to the present, where our population has increased 100-fold.

Compared to the vast challenges our society has faced and continues to face, including wars, economic collapses, the shift from agriculture to industrialization, and the ongoing digital transformation, this is a relatively easy problem to solve. As for a worker shortage, many older Americans would like to continue to engage in productive work only on a part or full-time basis but face all sorts of physical, social, and attitudinal barriers. It is worth noting that if we have smaller families, we will need fewer classrooms, so investments can be shifted toward meeting the needs of those in their later years. Parents who have smaller families can have more time to devote to other activities, which, for some, may involve caregiving for older family members or others.

As we get older, we all want to remain independent as long as possible. That can be very difficult. For example, there are many places in the United States where older people become isolated when they are unable to drive a car. That isolation is deadly in so many ways. And, when older people are able to be more independent, they require less support services. 

Why do you think the media doesn’t mention that the Vatican banning contraception only dates from the early 19th century?

Contraception has been around for thousands of years in various forms. Modern, or what some would call quote “artificial” contraception, became widely available around 1960. It seemed as if the Catholic Church would be open to it for a brief period. Then, the Pope stepped in. Essentially, Catholics in more highly developed and educated places ignore the church’s teaching on this.

In the United States, Catholics have smaller families than Protestants. And heavily Catholic countries such as Italy have some of the smallest families on Earth. However, the Catholic Church does have a very negative influence in less-developed places on Earth. Here in the United States, while the Catholic hierarchy is aligned against artificial contraception and abortion, there are many leading elected officials who support reproductive rights who are Catholics. Nancy Pelosi is an excellent example.

Do you find that you lose your audience’s interest when you discuss population? Or is population something you feel you must keep in the background?

Quite the contrary. I’ve long said that the reason people supposedly can’t talk about population is because they don’t talk about population. But it’s always important to know the audience and to try to reach them where they are. Over the years, I have found that our members by and large, are highly educated, sophisticated, and interested in facts, figures, and science generally. Unfortunately, that’s not true for everyone out there. Having delivered hundreds of talks on more than 80 college and university campuses, I’ve found that the overwhelming majority of students are interested and engaged by the topic. That includes Ivy League universities, large state universities, small rural colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities – you name it.

It’s generally more effective to go directly to people as, for example, when we train some 11,000 teachers annually or when we reach millions of people through various types of media where we don’t have to deal with “gatekeepers.” While breaking through the noise can be difficult, our team is still committed to responding to population-related headlines with letters to the editor (LTEs). We also submit our own opinion articles (op-eds) to raise awareness of population issues. You can see our recent media coverage on this page, and read our unpublished letters here.