Is There a Moral Case for Depopulation? Climate Crisis and the Ethics Around Overpopulation

Abstract

This paper addresses the prevailing disparity between empirical climate science and population ethics, evaluating whether a substantive moral case for depopulation exists within the context of the Anthropocene. Operating within a framework of impersonal collectivism and intergenerational justice, the analysis critiques the abstraction inherent in traditional utilitarianism. Specifically, Derek Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion—widely considered as a preeminent ‘bind’ in modern population ethics—is challenged for its failure to integrate Earth’s material resource limits and absolute carrying capacity into its ethical calculations. The paper highlights that if humanity exceeds the planet’s carrying capacity, then a prolonged state of resource overshoot is unavoidable. This overshoot triggers irreversible climatic tipping points, fundamentally degrading the environment and permanently diminishing the total potential utility for future generations. Consequently, current climatic and demographic trajectories render the world statistically “beyond repugnant”. By inverting standard utilitarian expansionary logic, the research demonstrates that reducing population to sustainable levels is the only method to maximize future total happiness. Furthermore, this conclusion is shown to unify disparate ethical frameworks, aligning explicitly with the Rawlsian “just savings” principle, which demands acceptable intergenerational resource allocation. Finally, this collective necessity is shown to translate into individual responsibility. Moreover, existing ethical systems are argued to already possess the logic to demand reduced birth rates—while strictly maintaining the inviolability of the death rate and duty of care to the living—precluding the need for a fundamental extension of morality.