Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 15, No. 4, April 2019
Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor
Home Page


New Horizons of Ecological Solidarity

"In nature, nothing exists alone." ~ Rachel Carson, 1962
Visit the "Earth Day 2019 ~ Protect Our Species" Website
Check the IPBES Global Ecosystem Assessment Announcement

Combat Overpopulation Denial, by Richard Grossman

Reflections and Chronicles From the End of Time: Loving Interdependency, by Carlos Cuellar Brown

Why the "Anthropocene" Is Not "Climate Change" and Why It Matters, by Julia Adeney Thomas

After the Anthropocene, by Glenn Albrecht

Green New Deal Must Transform Our Food System to Save Our Climate, by Kari Hamerschlag and Lisa Archer

A Green New Deal Must Not Be Tied to Economic Growth, by Giorgos Kallis

Global Use of Natural Resources is Skyrocketing, by Arthur Wyns

We Need Eco-Social Democracy, by Johano Strasser

When the Water Runs Out, by Jody Tishmack

Intergenerational Theft ~ Capitalism Steals from the Young and the Unborn, by George Monbiot

The Real Energy Return of Crude Oil: Smaller than You Would Have Imagined, by Luciano Celi

Fracking 2.0 Was a Financial Disaster, Will Fracking 3.0 Be Different?, by Justin Mikulka

A Different View of Venezuela's Energy Problems, by Gail Tverberg

Costa Rica is One of the World's Happiest Countries ~ Here's What It Does Differently, by Josephine Moulds

Growthism: Its Ecological, Economic, and Ethical Limits, by Herman Daly

The Human System of Needs, by Brendan Montague

Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot Afterword, by Eileen Crist

Can we Learn from Our Medieval Ancestors how to Manage the Coming Collapse? The Great Challenge of the Seneca Bottleneck, by Ugo Bardi

Finance Against Economic Equality and Ecological Sustainability, by Peter Bearse

Global Inequality: Do We Really Live in a One-Hump World?, by Jason Hickel

The House is on Fire, by Richard Heinberg

What is the Role of Technology in Sustainability?, by David Obura

Between Technophobia and Technoutopia – Ethical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence, by Obiora Ike

A Cultural Revolution for an Integral Ecology, by Luis Gutiérrez

Combat Overpopulation Denial

Richard Grossman

Originally published in
Population Matters, 23 February 2019


“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” Milton Friedman

I first met people who denied the population problem in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development. They supported their claim that there was no population problem with the statement that all the world’s people could fit into Texas.

Well, they are correct, however there are problems with this contention. If everybody crowded into Texas we would each have almost a thousand square feet! That’s plenty of room, wouldn’t you say?

What about food? where would food come from, and how would it get distributed to all those people? What about drinking water? How would we stay warm in the winter? And what would happen to all the waste? Clearly people require more than just a thousand square feet.

How much land does each person currently use? The best way of calculating this seems to be the Ecological Footprint. The EF has been calculated for people in many countries, and combines the land needed to live on, grow our food on, the area needed to develop natural resources and also the land to dispose of our waste. It is a comprehensive method of evaluating a person’s impact on Earth, although it does leave out one factor. More about that factor below.

The area of land in square feet, and the world population, are both very large numbers, of course. The EF only includes what is called “bioproductive” land—leaving out mountains and deserts. It turns out that an average citizen of the world is using about 291,000 square feet of land, or about 6 2/3 acres. This is more than 290 times the area allotted if we all squeezed into Texas! The people who deny overpopulation use an argument that is based on drastic misinformation.

Indeed, not only could we all not fit into Texas for any period of time, but also we don’t really fit into Earth. To be sustainable, with our current population and level of consumption, we would need 1.7 times the land area available to us. We have overdrawn on our global savings account in order to enjoy our consumptive lifestyle.

We can already see the effects of overpopulation and overconsumption. Perhaps most evident is climate change. Land is eroding, fisheries are depleted and toxic chemicals are ubiquitous. Furthermore, we are killing off other species at terrifying rates—at least 1000 timesnormal. Although the Ecological Footprint is an excellent tool for comparing what people are using with what is available, it has a major limitation. It does not leave any resources for other species.

I haven’t read the book “Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline”, but I’ve read reviews. The authors, neither of whom is a demographer, maintain that the world is not overpopulated and, indeed, needs more people. They are concerned that the birth rate is falling more rapidly than the UN and other demographers realize. I wish they were correct, but I disagree!

The Wall Street Journal review of the book uses the term “global population collapse”—but there is little reason to believe that this will happen this century; we’re still adding 80 million people to the planet each year. The review is concerned that the growth of the economy will slow. Only a madman or an economist can believe that perpetual economic growth is possible.

What is wrong with this book? There seem to be many errors. The authors don’t focus on subSaharan Africa, where the average woman still has almost 5 children, and parents want large families. The authors seem to ignore demographic momentum, which causes growth to continue for several decades even after a country reaches replacement family size.

The major problem with “Empty Planet” is that nowhere (in reviews I’ve read) do the authors compare the resources we humans are using with what is available. The Ecological Footprint does that, and the result is not pretty. Unfortunately that book is not alone in not considering the finiteness of our planet. Even though Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for economics, he was not thinking globally when he wrote the quote at the beginning of this column. Our global “pie” is fixed in size. We in rich countries are endangering people in other countries with our growing population and extravagant lifestyle. We are also endangering our progeny.

© Richard Grossman 2019


Richard Grossman is a retired obstetrician-gynecologist who is currently researching issues of population ecology. Readers who would like to receive monthly emails about population issues can contact Dr. Grossman at


"When the whole world is globalized,
you're going to be able to set fire to the
whole thing with a single match."

— René Girard (1923-2015)


Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the PelicanWeb Home Page

Creative Commons License
ISSN 2165-9672

Page 1      



Subscribe to the
Mother Pelican Journal
via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: