Some thoughts about people who advocate for a larger population

By Richard Grossman MD | 26 August 2026
Population Matters-USA

As a child, our father introduced my sister and me to the scientific world and our mother to the natural world. For me, the two came together in college, where I (accidentally) earned a degree in both psychology and zoology. I had already decided to devote my life to fighting overpopulation, but it was not until about 2003 that I really understood the threat of human overpopulation to other species.

Conservation biologists, the group that is most concerned with preventing species from extinction, recognize the 6 most common causes of extinction: loss of habitat, climate chaos, invasive species, infection, pollution and overharvesting. Unfortunately, these are all caused by humans; the more humans, the fewer species.

There are at least 2 ways to protect the natural world. One way is to work on slowing human population growth–thank you to all my readers for sharing this concern! Another way is to recognize the intrinsic value of the natural world. We have long recognized the value of some parts of nature to humans, but thought other parts were of little value. We now realize the interconnectedness of the biosphere.

Recently there have been successful efforts to give legal standing to portions of the natural world. For instance, Panama has a law that recognizes the inherent rights of sea turtles and of their habitats. The Earth Law Center in Durango is a leader in this type of action.
My concern is that those who fear decreasing fertility ignore the fact that we are degrading the natural world. They seem to assume that the resources that are important to humans will continue to be available at the same levels as we have now, but that is far from the truth.

What is Missing in this Report?

This month a right-wing group which advocates for more children, published a report with which I agree, mainly. However, they have forgotten to include one important factor in their calculations.

Friendly reminder.

India’s population is now 1.47 billion, they have surpassed China and they are now making up 1 in 6 people on earth.

The figures are utterly absurd. India could send the whole population of Australia (approximately 28 million people) to every single nation in… https://t.co/styxMRDs4L pic.twitter.com/NbmjdVBvcy

— Restore Australia 🇦🇺 (@RestoreAussies) April 21, 2026

The report, by the Institute for Family Studies, is named: “The Demographic Dead End”. It’s subtitle is more revealing: “Without Action, American Population Will Decline”. I heard about the report by reading a New York Times Guest Essay: “The Population Bust Is Coming Sooner Than Anyone Is Prepared For”, which was written by one of the report’s authors, Lyman Stone. Dr. Stone is the director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.

Let me be fair. Stone has earned a doctorate in demography, while I have never had any formal study of either demography or economics.

Here are two of the surprising points from the report:

Although fertility in the USA has declined, people want more children, on the average, than they actually have. Total fertility is 1.6 children but studies show that we wish to have 2.4.
Apparently peer culture is a major factor in deciding the number of children to have. If your neighbor has a large family, then you are likely to follow suit. That influence is also true with celebrities; people tend to follow the lead of the celebrities they admire when planning their families.

Elon Musk: "Probably the biggest myth that exists right now is this overpopulation myth, when in fact we have a population collapse problem."

"I think that's the biggest risk to civilization right now. We've got to get rid of this nonsense."pic.twitter.com/p4WvaSqoTB

— Resist the Mainstream (@ResisttheMS) May 22, 2026

In the section titled “How to Restore American Family Growth”, the report suggests several inducements to increase family size. These include:

Giving people lots of money for having children. They suggest bank accounts larger than the measly $1000 “Trump Accounts” that were passed in the “Big Beautiful Bill”. Similar to a Finnish plan, the report advocates for a bank account that would be funded at birth for each child born in the USA. The child would only be able to access some of that money when they had a child of their own. Moreover, it would take a family of 3 children before the parent could access all the money in the account. However, international experience has shown little effect of paying people to have children.
Crediting new parents with social security benefits when they stay home from work after the birth of a child. Although new parents in the USA do get leave after the birth of a child, it is usually short. The social security benefit in this proposed plan would be for 5 years.
Doing away with financial penalties for getting married. “Getting married should never cause anybody to lose a benefit,” to quote the report.
Building family-friendly housing. In addition, the report suggests ways to change society to be more family-friendly: “Encourage Supportive Friendship” and “Promote Real-Life Socializing”.

An alternative to these ways to make society more supportive of parenting, I suggest cohousing. Gail and I live in Heartwood Cohousing, an intentional community, with people of all ages. Those of us who are grandparents help the young parents with childcare on a routine basis. I commend this way of trying to rebuild the old-fashioned community where people live close physically and emotionally.

What is the factor left out of these calculations and others worrying about the decreasing birth rate? Humans do not exist in a vacuum, but we are dependent on a huge, complex ecosystem with amazing biodiversity. We are already causing the rapid extinction of species and using up our progeny’s resources. With even larger populations, there will be less left for posterity. “One Health” may help guide our future: it is a movement that looks at the complex relationship between deterioration of our environment, animals and global human health. All people looking at the future of human population must also consider our effects on the natural world.

Reprinted with permission from the author.

Richard Grossman became concerned about overpopulation in high school and chose a medical path to work in the field. He practiced gynecology and obstetrics, including abortion care, for 40 years in Southwest Colorado. Now retired, he writes a monthly essay on aspects of human population. If you like his blog, www.population-matters.org, you can subscribe using the form at the bottom of the page.