I find it difficult to read about this because I feel so sad there's no way I can live in that world of 1 billion people. Not only would a reduced population consume less, a declining population would mean extractive activities could all but cease as recycling became the major source of raw materials. And sustainability would be the default, rather than the exception - imagine commercial fishers reducing their effort because stocks were recovering every year. It could be a gentler, freer and more abundant world but I'll never see it because the only way to get there is through catastrophe or atrocity.
Instead, we live in a world characterised by poverty and competition over scarce resources. According to Our World in Data, in 2018 14% of the world's population were not living in poverty (over $US10,000 a year, adjusted for price level).
In this context overtourism in Venice offers a pretty test case for my pocket theory of abundance (see comment on the old blog https://johnquiggin.com/2025/07/07/monday-message-board-689/#comment-265939 ). 30 million people visit the city every year, which the locals agree is wrecking the place. 90% are thought to be day trippers from cruise ships and bus tours, who hardly spend anything. The other 3m stay at least one overnight, usually more. They are driving up rents and driving out locals. This can’t go on.
The problem for Bentham Khan, benevolent world dictator, is limiting access to Venice to a level that maintains a healthy community life. He could start with the overnighters who create the housing problem. He sets a new target of 2m a year. He can be more flexible on the tightwad day trippers, say another 2m. Total allowed visitors 4m.
With a world population of 1bn, that’s 0.4% annually; with 10bn, 0.04%. A representative global citizen has a travelling lifespan of 60 years, so the lifetime equal chance of access rises to 2.4% for 1 bn, 0.24% for 10 bn. The former is within spitting distance of the actual demand, and probably manageable with a good rationing scheme - take your pick between Pigovian externality tax and egalitarian lottery. The latter, for the 10bn population, presents an insoluble dilemma.
Fundamental scarcities of this type are much easier to handle with a lower population.
I am inordinately proud to not have contributed to the massive overpopulation of this planet and the associated loss of our wondrous environment. What is it they say - to maintain all of the population we already have at a humane standard, would require 3 planets? Stop breeding folks!
I'm sure that a world of 1 billion people could be perfectly sustainable in equilibrium. Equilibrium is an economist concept. Politicians must focus on transition costs: two or three generations of over-geezered population. And worse yet, the transition would likely not be homogeneous, since it is the wealthy countries that reproduce the least. As St. Augustine said: "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet!"
"two or three generations of over-geezered population" As i have pointed out previously, and will spell out further, children are massively more costly than geezers. The average geezer requires care for about six months before passing on. Children require massively more than this
Dunno about that. Children are investment goods; geezers (like me!) do nothing but consume. In terms of personal care, you're right, although parenting is a mixture of work and done-for-its-own-sake "leisure." But in terms of total net resources, I'm not sure. I look forward to your more extended analysis.
Geezers in my neighbourhood care for grandchildren, do search and rescue, man a trishaw program for the elderly and infirm, assist the VON driving people to medical appointments, deliver meals on wheels, maintain hiking trails, and are often the backbone of various community groups - pulling their weight I think.
This only works if people have the desired number of kids and no more. Even then there is typically a public investment in schooling and so on that needs to be evaluated carefully.
At the other end of the age scale, geezer are (roughly speaking) consuming out of savings (or tax revenue) generated when they were working. So there need not be any transfer from the rest of society.
Love this idea. And cities could be European-sized: 1-2 million each, which are great for public transport and access to services.
I find it difficult to read about this because I feel so sad there's no way I can live in that world of 1 billion people. Not only would a reduced population consume less, a declining population would mean extractive activities could all but cease as recycling became the major source of raw materials. And sustainability would be the default, rather than the exception - imagine commercial fishers reducing their effort because stocks were recovering every year. It could be a gentler, freer and more abundant world but I'll never see it because the only way to get there is through catastrophe or atrocity.
Instead, we live in a world characterised by poverty and competition over scarce resources. According to Our World in Data, in 2018 14% of the world's population were not living in poverty (over $US10,000 a year, adjusted for price level).
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions
In this context overtourism in Venice offers a pretty test case for my pocket theory of abundance (see comment on the old blog https://johnquiggin.com/2025/07/07/monday-message-board-689/#comment-265939 ). 30 million people visit the city every year, which the locals agree is wrecking the place. 90% are thought to be day trippers from cruise ships and bus tours, who hardly spend anything. The other 3m stay at least one overnight, usually more. They are driving up rents and driving out locals. This can’t go on.
The problem for Bentham Khan, benevolent world dictator, is limiting access to Venice to a level that maintains a healthy community life. He could start with the overnighters who create the housing problem. He sets a new target of 2m a year. He can be more flexible on the tightwad day trippers, say another 2m. Total allowed visitors 4m.
With a world population of 1bn, that’s 0.4% annually; with 10bn, 0.04%. A representative global citizen has a travelling lifespan of 60 years, so the lifetime equal chance of access rises to 2.4% for 1 bn, 0.24% for 10 bn. The former is within spitting distance of the actual demand, and probably manageable with a good rationing scheme - take your pick between Pigovian externality tax and egalitarian lottery. The latter, for the 10bn population, presents an insoluble dilemma.
Fundamental scarcities of this type are much easier to handle with a lower population.
I am inordinately proud to not have contributed to the massive overpopulation of this planet and the associated loss of our wondrous environment. What is it they say - to maintain all of the population we already have at a humane standard, would require 3 planets? Stop breeding folks!
I'm sure that a world of 1 billion people could be perfectly sustainable in equilibrium. Equilibrium is an economist concept. Politicians must focus on transition costs: two or three generations of over-geezered population. And worse yet, the transition would likely not be homogeneous, since it is the wealthy countries that reproduce the least. As St. Augustine said: "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet!"
"two or three generations of over-geezered population" As i have pointed out previously, and will spell out further, children are massively more costly than geezers. The average geezer requires care for about six months before passing on. Children require massively more than this
Dunno about that. Children are investment goods; geezers (like me!) do nothing but consume. In terms of personal care, you're right, although parenting is a mixture of work and done-for-its-own-sake "leisure." But in terms of total net resources, I'm not sure. I look forward to your more extended analysis.
Geezers in my neighbourhood care for grandchildren, do search and rescue, man a trishaw program for the elderly and infirm, assist the VON driving people to medical appointments, deliver meals on wheels, maintain hiking trails, and are often the backbone of various community groups - pulling their weight I think.
This only works if people have the desired number of kids and no more. Even then there is typically a public investment in schooling and so on that needs to be evaluated carefully.
At the other end of the age scale, geezer are (roughly speaking) consuming out of savings (or tax revenue) generated when they were working. So there need not be any transfer from the rest of society.