THE PHILOSOPHY OF DEMOGRAPHY: A COMPREHENSIVE INQUIRY INTO POPULATION REPRODUCTION THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURE AND HUMAN QUALITIES


DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2025.94.12-35

Vadym Derkach

Abstract


This article offers a philosophical reconsideration of demographic phenomena, extending the discourse beyond purely quantitative parameters to encompass the evaluative dimensions of human reproduction. The analysis addresses ecological constraints, reproductive autonomy, the cultural inversion in intergenerational relations, transhumanism, and the notion of a “lifeaffirming ethics.” The methodological approach combines conceptual analysis with scenario modeling.
The author introduces a paradigm in which the optimal population size is assessed not in terms of absolute numbers but through the qualitative composition of the population, viewed within the framework of sustainable civilizational progress. Central to this paradigm is the identification of a critical minimum — an irreducible demographic threshold required to maintain a population capable of sustaining the cognitive and technological conditions necessary for further breakthroughs and for preserving a meaningful quality of life.
It is argued that economic growth cannot serve as an adequate justification for population expansion, and that per capita income ceases to be a relevant metric of well-being once a certain threshold has been surpassed. Instead, the principal criterion for quality of life is posited to be the duration of the intellectually productive phase within the human life cycle.Accordingly, improvements in this quality are linked to technological advances that promise to simultaneously reduce the ecological footprint and optimize population size under conditions of low fertility and extended longevity. The article thus challenges conventional demographic assumptions and advocates for a normative reorientation grounded in the philosophical evaluation of human potential and cultural evolution.


Keywords


demography; morality; sustainability; human qualities; transhumanism; reproductive freedom; quality of life

References


Ehrlich, P.R. (1998) The Population Bomb (Revised), Sierra Club/ Ballantine Books. 226 p.

Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, A. H., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1994). Optimum human population size. Population and Environment, 15 (6), 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211719

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books.

Peccei, A. (1977). The human quality. Pergamon Press. 236 р.

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers.

Wackernagel, M., Lin, D., Evans, M., Hanscom, L., & Raven, P. (2019). Defying the footprint oracle: Implications of country resource trends. Sustainability, 11 (7), 2164. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072164

Wackernagel, M., & Beyers, B. (2025). Ecological footprint: Managing our biocapacity budget. New Society Publishers.

Dasgupta, P. (2021). Population, ecological footprint and the sustainable development goals. Environmental and Resource Economics, 79, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00595-5

Du, J. (2024). Balancing Growth and Sustainability: Exploring the Optimal Global Population. Journal of World Economy, 3 (3), 60–67.

Easterlin, R. A. (2010). Happiness, growth, and the life cycle. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199592846.001.0001

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot

Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.

Lin, B., & Xu, B. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and urbanization: Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 35449–35463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06675-0

Saqib, N., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2023). The impact of high-quality development on ecological footprint: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135147

Samways, D. (2024). Population Dynamics, Economic Growth and Planetary Boundaries. The Journal of Population and Sustainability, 8 (2), 5–14.

Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC hypothesis: A panel quantile regression approach for ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 14068–14084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1689-2

Roser, M. (2023). Demographic transition: Why is rapid population growth a temporary phenomenon

UNFPA. (2024). Demographic Change and Sustainability. United Nations Population Fund.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022). World Population Prospects 2022.

Kolk, M. (2022). Demographic theory and population ethics. In G. Arrhenius (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics (pp. 468–489). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190907686.013.4

Mulgan, T. (2006). Future people: A moderate consequentialist account of our obligations to future generations. Oxford University Press. 320 р.

Wareham, C. (2016). The Transhumanist Prospect: Developing Technology to Extend the Human Lifespan. In: Scarre, G. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Aging. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39356-2_28

UNDP (2024). Human Development Report 2023/24: Breaking the Gridlock.

Our World in Data. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/demographic-transitionOur World in Data

World Bank. (n.d.). World Development Indicators. The World Bank. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

Hoppa, R. D., & Vaupel, J. W. (Eds.). (2002). Paleodemography: Age Distributions from Skeletal Samples. Cambridge University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The editorial board does not always share the position of the authors. The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the material presented.
All rights reserved.
© Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2026