Some believe fewer people means a healthier planet. They’re wrong.
Environmental destruction is real—deforestation, industrial pollution, carbon emissions, rising global temperatures. Climate disasters, from wildfires to floods, only reinforce the urgency for action. Governments worldwide promote efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle, encouraging citizens to curb waste and lower their carbon footprint.
Still, many wonder if these actions are enough. With global population expected to hit 10 billion in the coming decades, some argue that the real problem isn’t just pollution or overconsumption—it’s the sheer number of people on the planet.
Some believe fewer people means less strain on the planet.
But is population really the problem? Or is the real culprit excessive consumerism, waste, and fossil fuel dependency?
Before accepting drastic solutions like population control, we need to examine the facts.
Why Attributing Climate Crisis To Global Population Growth Is A Flawed Argument
True. There is evidence global temperatures have been inching up; the question is why and to what degree that increase is manmade.
True. Elevated individual carbon footprint does adversely impact the planet.
And true. Global population took 1800 years to reach 1 billion, but will take a mere 250 years to hit 8.6 billion in 2050. This explosion of human population in such a relatively short time might certainly play a part in our climate crisis.
But to say the latter is reason enough to curb births globally, is both simplistic and, quite frankly, inaccurate. Especially when excessive consumerism, waste generation, deforestation, fossil fuel dependency and industrial agriculture (that results in the rise of greenhouse gas emissions), are more likely what’s behind our climate crisis. Addressing these will go a far longer and more permanent way to stabilise our climate situation.
How? With more controlled and responsible consumption. Reduction in emissions, both individually and corporately. And putting in place more sustainable practices across society. Especially in nations with the highest emissions and waste. The United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) report in 2022 has also laid laid out plans to ameliorate global warming that has nothing to do with curbing population growth.
In short, the solution to our climate crisis cannot be draconian population control, as many environmental activists and antinatalists — think Jane Goodall, Paul & Anne Ehrlich, and others of their ilk — would have us believe. (For the record, these proponents are in fact themselves parents, so the irony is almost laughable)
Sacrificing future generations to ‘save’ the planet is a deeply flawed argument—yet many are convinced otherwise.
And unfortunately, many today of marriageable age, do.
Concerns Of Millenials & Gen Zs
In 2021, a survey found that 22 per cent of Singaporean youths (18–34 years old) were hesitant to have kids due to climate change. In a similar survey the following year, many respondents expressed a sense of fear, sadness and hopelessness about the planet’s future.
No doubt, these sentiments have risen further now as climate anxiety, fuelled by doomsday messaging in popular media, grows.
One recent conversation I had with R.L., a man in his late 20s, reflected these anxieties. Married for a couple of years with no plans for children, he shared his reasoning:
“Living in Singapore my whole life, I can feel just how much warmer the weather is. Some days, it’s unbearable. Naturally, I wonder what life here will be like in 20, 30, 50 years. It won’t matter much to me by then, but for my hypothetical children, that’s their reality.
It’s not just the heat. Climate change means rising sea levels, loss of biodiversity, and more natural disasters. Our generation is responsible for handing these problems to them. For us, CC may be a mild inconvenience—taking shelter or carrying an umbrella—but for them, it could be far worse.
As some climate experts predict, the future doesn’t look optimistic for human flourishing. So I feel it’s for the best not to bring another life here to suffer from the actions of my generation and its predecessors.”
But here’s the irony: if those most concerned about climate change refuse to have children, who will be left to carry on the fight? If the next generation of environmentally conscious individuals self-eliminates, doesn’t that hand the future over to those who care the least?
Beyond that, choosing not to have children isn’t just a personal sacrifice—it has massive societal consequences. Fewer births today mean a shrinking population tomorrow, creating a “birthgap” where aging societies lack the younger workers needed to sustain their economies, care for the elderly, and drive innovation. But the real kicker? This birthgap doesn’t just shrink populations—it makes it even harder for future generations to reverse the trend.
As fewer children are born, societies adapt to smaller family norms, and the economic burden on individuals rises. Fewer working adults must support more retirees, increasing taxes and the cost of living. Fewer young people mean less demand for family-friendly infrastructure, making childcare, housing, and work-life balance even more difficult for those who do want kids.
In short, a declining population sets off a vicious cycle where parenthood becomes increasingly impractical—exacerbating the very problem of low fertility rates and making recovery nearly impossible.
Our Ancestors Were Not Fatalistic
Yet, if we but dive into human history, we will clearly see that the world has always faced crises — plagues, wars, and pandemics.
Many of these happened during times of extreme poverty, poor public health, and deplorable environmental hygiene. Times when infant mortality were higher than they are now, and bringing children into the world was even more ethically and morally reprehensible than today.
Yet that was exactly what our forebears did. Large families of ten or more children were commonplace barely a century ago.
Imagine if our ancestors were to think they knew better. That they see no future for their descendants, given all the above-mentioned challenges during their time.
You and I may very well not be here today.
The Best Era To Have Children
The truth is, we are actually in the best moment of human history to bring forth more babies safely into the world. By almost every metric, life today is safer, healthier, and wealthier than ever before.
Just look at our medical advancements—neonatal care, vaccines, and modern sanitation have made childbirth and childhood safer than ever. Add to that today’s societal infrastructure, childcare services, and family support systems—things past generations could only dream of. Even 50 years ago, these capabilities were unimaginable.
Consider these facts:
- For most of human history, around 1 in 2 newborns died before reaching the age of 15. By 1950, that figure had declined to around one-quarter globally. By 2020, it had fallen to 4 per cent.
- Just a couple of centuries ago, extreme poverty was nearly universal. In 1820, 94 per cent of people everywhere lived on less than US$2 a day. By 2018, only 8.6 per cent lived on under US$1.90.
- Life expectancy has also risen — from 32 years old in 1900 to about 71 in 2021, reflecting both economic and health improvements.
Domestically, Singapore isn’t just talking about reversing its record-low birth rate—it’s putting serious money behind it. More Baby Bonus cash, longer paternity leave, housing grants, and cheaper childcare aren’t just perks; they’re signals that raising a family isn’t a burden, but a priority.
Parents with three or more children receive additional grants, MediSave support, and annual LifeSG Credits to help with household expenses. Childcare is becoming more accessible, with lower preschool fees, more full-day childcare places, and levy concessions for families hiring domestic workers. For lower-income families, enhanced financial aid, housing grants, and homeownership assistance provide greater stability, ensuring that having children isn’t just a privilege for the wealthy.
Beyond direct financial support, the government is tackling broader cost-of-living concerns. Households receive CDC vouchers, utilities rebates, and education top-ups, while rental-flat families are given pathways to homeownership.
The message is clear: if you want to start a family, Singapore wants to help. But whether these incentives will be enough to shift societal attitudes on marriage and parenthood remains the real question.
Hope Springs Eternal
When you consider the uncertain future that awaits, it seems far more imperative that we increase rather than decrease births everywhere. Especially if we hope to raise the next Einstein, Musk, Boserup, Simon or Borlaug to help us figure out innovative solutions to the challenges still ahead.
We need the next generation not just to survive, but to innovate. To solve the very problems we seem incapable of fully rectifying today.
For in the end, it comes down to the human race to save the planet and the human race itself!
If we stop having children, who exactly do we expect to save the planet?
Kelvin Seah is a stay-at-home dad, whose favourite roles in life are being a husband of one wife since 2000, a hands-on father to his sons (15 and 13), and blogging about special needs, parenting, culture, education, work, writing, and life in general. He writes about autism, parenting, and life at kelvinsmusings.com.
