To make the article easier to understand, an analogy should be made between the Earth and an oasis in the middle of a vast desert, in which all forms of life are absent and every second in it is equivalent to death not only for human beings, but also for every other known living organism. In this oasis, initially, few people lived and there was an abundance of organic and inorganic resources. However, as the people in the oasis increased, so did their needs. Soon the resources began to be squeezed.
People came closer to each other, competing for water, food, raw materials and space. People began to group into factions and used procreation as a means of increasing their population, in order to have the necessary numerical superiority to impose themselves on their neighbors or to defend their space. However, the increase in population led to greater pressure on the plants and animals that the oasis had, which gradually became fewer, while others disappeared. Social cohesion was tested and gradually grumbling, tensions and crime increased.
This image is a metaphor for our planet today, while organized crime between large groups of people is called War. A unique, fragile “home” in a vast and inhospitable space, with finite area and resources that are not inexhaustible.
Environmental limits are not immutable and ecosystems can collapse when pushed beyond a certain limit. To the above, it should be added that not the entire planet is suitable for habitation, since large parts of the land mass are hostile or completely unsuitable for human habitation on a large scale or exploitation, such as the Sahara, the interior of Australia, Antarctica, etc.
Critical natural resources and climate crisis
The modern economy depends on natural resources to function, with oil and its derivatives forming the basis of modern civilization. Proven global oil reserves are approximately 1.765.151.568.000 barrels, with annual consumption of ~37,4 billion barrels (2024). This translates to approximately 47 years of production based on current consumption levels.
Additionally, demand for critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earths is rapidly increasing due to electrification and high-tech device applications. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a ~60% increase in demand for such materials in the coming decadesThis creates two major challenges. First, supplies are not unlimited and second, demand is growing at a faster rate due to technological requirements (e.g. electric vehicles, manufacturing of AI processors, etc.).
Population growth and technological demands mean that the use of natural resources, energy production and impacts on the climate and environment are intertwined and become central issues. The use of energy resources such as oil directly affects the greenhouse effect and the pace of climate change, if we accept that this is anthropogenic. The need for “clean energy” increases the dependence on critical metals and rare earths that have significant geopolitical importance, while their processing has a large environmental footprint. It is clear that even if ecosystems can withstand short-term pressures, a long period of increased needs can lead to irreversible changes.
Population trends
According to George Margaritis, human civilization has lived for the vast majority of its history on a sparsely populated, almost deserted – in terms of people – planet. His article points out that the human population has grown rapidly in the last century. From about 200 million in 200 AD, it reached 7 billion in 2010 and today exceeds 8,2 billion people with an average density of over 55 people per square kilometer. The most recent UN estimates show that the world population is expected to continue to grow for several more decades.
However, this increase is much slower than in the past and shows signs of stabilising. According to the World Population Prospects 2024, the world population is projected to reach ~10,3 billion in the mid-2080s and then to decrease slightly to ~10,2 billion by 2100 In more than half of the world's countries, the birth rate is below the replacement level of 2,1 children per woman, meaning that without migration their population would decline by as time went by.
However, there are significant disparities: while many developed countries have low fertility rates, others, especially in Africa, have high rates. This mixed picture makes it clear that there is no global pattern, but different demographic challenges per region.
The Socratic Idea of Universality as a Criterion of Truth
Socrates did not propose a strict rule that a proposition must be universally true to be true. However, through dialectic and the testing of claims with questions, he demonstrated that a claim is incomplete if it is not true under all circumstances, that is, if it does not withstand investigation and application beyond local or specific examples.
Both in Greece and in the European Union, the phenomenon of low birth rates and an aging population is observed. This means that with the current organization of the socio-economic system, pension systems and health services are burdened. Thus, population growth (through birth support or immigration) may seem a logical priority.
However, the Socratic evaluation requires that the question be asked: Can what applies to Greece and the EU apply to all countries in the world, since all insurance and pension systems are more or less the same, without exceeding as a species some environmental “threshold” and the limits of the planet’s resources? Can national or regional demographic needs be reduced to universal rules without raising issues of sustainability, consumption, living standards, environmental and waste management, etc.?
What will happen if the political leaderships of large countries (e.g. China, India, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.), decide, based on the estimates of demographers, that for geopolitical and geoeconomic reasons it is necessary to maintain or increase their populations and take the corresponding political decisions? Will the planet then inevitably face the problem of Carrying Capacity?
The concept describes the maximum size of a population group that can sustainably support an ecosystem without depleting its resources, that is, without destroying the “source” that supports it. Simply put, if there is room for 100 deer in a forest, this is the number that can “support” the local ecosystem with food and water without degradation. If another 50 are added, for whatever reason, tensions begin, resources are depleted faster than they are replenished, and eventually all the organisms in the forest are stressed.
The same principle applies to humans, although in a more complex way, because humans use technology and practices to temporarily increase resources in an area (e.g. through agriculture, transportation, trade, etc.). They can also import goods from surplus areas, and they have developed socio-political structures that alter access to resources, and therefore the standard of living of different social groups and ethnicities. Nevertheless, the basic rule remains. No living organism can grow indefinitely without encountering limits when resources are not renewed faster than they are consumed.
Is there a “Maximum” Number of People?
Science has yet to establish a definitive number for how many people the Earth can support. This is because the carrying capacity depends on a number of factors and variables such as consumption, available technological means, quality of life, and the standard of living considered “desirable” or “acceptable” by a society. Thus, various studies and estimates have given a huge range of values ranging from a few billion to tens of billions of people, depending on the assumptions. about lifestyle and consumption.
A more moderate estimate in a “scenario” of sustainability, sustainable development and fair distribution of resources, states that the sustainable population size could be between 3 – 5 billion people, if sensible consumption policies are combinedSimilar research projects indicate that the carrying capacity may be significantly lower than the current level, with estimates of ~2 billion, which would however have a high standard of livingFrom the above it follows that there is no absolute numerical value, but that carrying capacity is intrinsically linked to our lifestyle choices, therefore it is related to the religious and political-economic systems, as well as to the forms of governance that we have decided we want to apply.
A common argument in favor of population growth is that “there will be more workers and pension and insurance systems will be supported”. However, the data and studies so far show a different development. According to the World Economic Forum, the participation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the workplace is gradually increasing, with the percentage of work tasks performed by humans decreasing as technology becomes more flexible and capable. Estimates show that the Artificial Intelligence and robots can affect up to 40% of jobs.
Tasks currently performed by humans will likely be performed by a combination of humans and machines from 2030 onwards, but this change does not necessarily mean a mass disappearance of jobs, but their transformationStudies show that skills complementary to AI (e.g., collaboration skills, work ethic, creativity, etc.) will have an increase in demand by 2050 .
While there is no single, widely accepted prediction of “how many jobs will be eliminated by 2050,” the direction is clear. Many simple and unskilled tasks will be automated, while new skills and roles will develop. Work will be radically transformed, and no one can make safe longer-term predictions because technological developments are rapid.
The Political Dimension of Demographics
When publicists or politicians talk about a “demographic problem,” they often simply refer to the number of births or the rate of population growth. However, “one number” is not enough. This analysis is limited because it does not incorporate a number of key parameters, such as: Changes in work due to technological developments by 2050 and beyond, the production and consumption of natural resources, the geopolitical implications of dependence on critical materials, climate change, its environmental impacts, as well as the roughly calculated carrying capacity of the Earth for humans.
Demographics is not simply “how many children are born” or “what policies to stimulate births will be implemented”, but how this population will interact with policies, technology and ecological constraints over time. A policy to increase births today may have unpredictable consequences until the middle of the 21st century and the decades immediately following. Those born this year will be 24 years old in 2050 and will enter the labor market in a very different social and technological environment. The big question is what this will look like and how it will have evolved when today’s babies are in the critical age group of 40-60 years (i.e. the author’s current age group) in the 2070s, when they will logically be family heads themselves.
The demographic issue is a purely political challenge. It cannot be solved with simple slogans or statistics on “children per woman”. It requires a multi-factorial and global understanding, which will try to answer, and not only, the following questions: How will new technologies be integrated into work? How will resources be secured, their sustainable use and their fair distribution? How will climate change be addressed? How will fair social welfare policies and a high standard of living for all be implemented? Demographics must be discussed with the complexity of the issue in mind and not simply “the more mouths the better”. Unfortunately, however, history has shown that humanity finds it difficult to cooperate on global goals before serious crises and disasters occur.
Source https://slpress.gr/oikonomia/mia-alli-prosengisi-gia-to-dimografiko/
Photo Surprising_Media, https://pixabay.com
