Alarm over humanity’s growing ‘ecological footprint’ has breathed new life into an old concern: overpopulation. Ever since the Reverend Malthus’ prediction that exponential population growth would not be matched by a sufficient increase in the means of subsistence, demographic fears have periodically recurred, though in different guises. Despite the fact the ‘population bomb’ and global mass starvation have repeatedly failed to materialise, and despite population policy’s sinister past association with coercive sterilisation measures and eugenics, fears about overpopulation have been given new force today through the prioritisation of ‘sustainability’. ‘Too many people’ is either seen as a problem because of poverty, or because of affluence (via overconsumption and environmental degradation). So, does the historic pattern of Malthus and others crying wolf only to be proved wrong mean today’s concerns must be misplaced? Or is today’s ‘unsustainable’ population growth ‘the real wolf’, which we ignore at our peril?

Indeed, the massive growth in world population since the 1960s presents a distinct challenge, and many observers see today’s rising food prices as an ominous sign of things to come. While some demographers focus on the supposed correlation between overpopulation and underdevelopment, others fret about demographic decline in industrialised countries, a ‘pensions time-bomb’. Some critics have attempted to dispel the ‘population myth’ by drawing attention to thinly-veiled prejudices about African and Asian hordes overrunning Europe and America. Do such critics not downplay real problems, such as the need for sexual and reproductive health facilities and education in the developing world?

Are all attempts to limit population fundamentally misanthropic, trying to make humans fit the world rather than shaping the world for humanity’s needs? Or does such idealism obscure the real limitations thrown up by growing global population?