Kids vs. Consumption
As usual, there are many topics I could write about this month, but my research led me to a series of articles on the so-called “population crisis.” What struck me most was not the argument
itself, but that it has resurfaced after being largely disproven decades ago.
There was a time when fears of overpopulation seemed mathematically convincing. If humanity grew exponentially while food and energy production remained fixed, shortages would follow. But reality did not cooperate. Developed nations plateaued, and developing nations followed similar trends as they industrialized. The
predicted crisis never materialized thanks to plateaus and innovation.
What has returned is the claim that there are simply “too many people.” But this argument does not hold up. It often relies on food supply, yet the average person needs roughly 2,000 to 2,500 calories per day, while global food systems produce far more, estimates range from 3,800 to nearly 6,000 per person. The issue is not
supply; it is how resources are used.
Consider the United States. It is not the most populous nation, yet it ranks among the highest in energy and calorie consumption. Roughly one-third to 40% of all food is wasted, representing over $200 billion annually. The average household loses around $2,900 per year on food that is never eaten. At the individual level, about 27% of daily food spending is
wasted (which seems low to me). Energy consumption follows the same pattern: larger homes, more travel, and higher living standards drive usage far beyond necessity. All western nations broadly follow this trend.
Wealth compounds the issue. Roughly 31% of Americans now fall into the upper middle class, typically a household of three earning over $140,000 per year. This income enables significantly
higher consumption: more dining out, travel, larger homes, and newer vehicles. When nearly a third of the country lives at this level, the strain on food and energy systems is driven far more by lifestyle than population size.
Our consumption problem extends far beyond everyday waste—it is amplified by indulgence in unnecessary and harmful activities. Consider the scale of resources devoted to purely
optional pursuits: the food wasted by fine dining restaurants alone could feed 80 to 180 million people per year. The energy used for online sports betting could power up to 700,000 homes annually. Bitcoin mining consumes enough electricity to support 16.5 million homes, and the energy required for pornography production and viewing could power 11 million homes. These numbers show that humanity is capable of producing enough for everyone, yet excessive indulgence in frivolous or harmful
activities drives resource strain far more than family size or population growth. The problem is not scarcity—it is decadence.
At the same time, these societies are aging and producing fewer children. This creates an odd dilemma: we demand more from the earth while raising fewer people to sustain what we have built. If there are fewer people on earth and wealth concentrates, the result would be
demand lessening but not by huge margins, since wealth always demands more consumption. Infrastructure would decay unless huge innovations take hold. If the workforce goes from 8 billion to 2 billion, some important jobs will not be fulfilled. Putting it plainly, consumption does not disappear when populations shrink—it concentrates. History shows that when one dominant society declines, another rises and adopts similar habits. The problem persists because the mindset persists.
The idea of “too many people” also reduces human beings to units of consumption. Large families are often criticized as burdens on the planet, yet many live modestly, cooking at home, limiting luxuries, driving high-mileage cars, and using fewer resources per person. Meanwhile, smaller households, particularly high-income couples with no children, often consume far more through travel, dining, and discretionary
spending. The issue is not population, but how people live.
From a Christian perspective, this issue runs deeper. Human beings are not commodities to be managed or reduced. They are souls with eternal value. To suggest fewer people should exist for comfort or efficiency is to lose sight of the purpose of life itself. Some mainstream articles effectively advocate for fewer children so others can
continue living lavishly. This selfish thinking may not be intentional but it is present all the same. Instead of population control advocates arguing for fewer children, why not argue for less consumptive lives? Skipping the latter solution and going straight to the former shows a disgraceful disregard for human life that is not their own.
The solution is not fewer people. It is greater virtue, particularly temperance. The
population and consumption problem will be best solved by instilling Christian virtues into future generations, not government mandates. Well-considered programs can help, but society must understand the problem and take individual steps to solve it. Brighter futures are built by people taking individual actions, not governments seizing control of personal lives.
At its core, this is not an economic
or environmental crisis—it is a moral one. We view food, energy, and even people through the lens of consumption. When that happens, the natural conclusion is to reduce the number of people. The real crisis is that we are not producing the next generation while simultaneously refusing to moderate our lifestyles. In short, we are indulgent and care little about raising souls with a chance at heaven.
The solution is clear: have children, live with moderation, practice temperance, and orient life around the salvation of souls rather than accumulation.
A personal reflection: my wife and I are expecting our sixth child. Articles have labeled us irresponsible, yet experts and public figures argue for more children; Elon Musk, Vice President J.D. Vance, and researchers like Paul
Morland, Dean Spears, and Michael Geruso. The real issue is not family size, but indulgence. Our cars have over 100,000 miles, we live in a modest three-bedroom ranch (though we do have a nice finished basement), and we cook at home most of the time. Yet we still waste food, drive inefficiently, and use more electricity than we should. I am “the problem” not because of the size of my family, but because of Americanized lifestyle.
Suppose the world would be more sustainable with 2 billion people instead of 8 billion. That prioritizes the earth’s lifespan over the potential lives of human beings, implying we know better than God, who commanded humanity to be fruitful and multiply. Experts agree the earth can support up to 12 billion people. The real challenge is whether humans will reduce waste and live virtuously. There are two proposed solutions: either live with temperance and continue
to produce the human race that can carry on the good parts of Christian and Western civilization, or have governments police births. Who in their right minds thinks the latter is the way to go?
Not for nothing, but innovations like desalination, precision agriculture, vertical farming, cold storage, fracking, nuclear power plants, synthetic fuels, and fertilizers all emerged in the last 50 years.
What other innovations will take place in the next 50 years? We just sent humans back to the moon this month. I am confident we can feed everyone if we stop being greedy.
Some of the articles I came across below…
Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left - ScienceDirect
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/04/why-we-shouldnt-cheer-earths-growing-population?
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/4/4/43?
The argument from failure - The Overpopulation Project
Population collapse? The truth about low fertility and depopulation
The Case for Gradual Population Decline by Adair Turner - Project Syndicate
