Why ZPG Did Not Achieve Its Goal to Lower Population and Why We Can’t Grow-On Forever

• Dr. Karen I. Shragg
• September 8, 2025
• Forum Papers
• Forum Paper
• 0 Comments

Click here for a downloadable, printable PDF version. 

An NPG Forum Paper
by Dr. Karen I. Shragg
September 2025

ABSTRACT

American citizens who listened to the wisdom of ZPG (Zero Population Growth) back in the 1970s may be wondering if their decision to have a small family, 0-2 children, actually contributed to the lowering of US population. ZPG was founded in 1968 by biologist Paul Ehrlich, attorney Richard Bowers and entomologist Charles Remington following the release of Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb.1 These were both influential in affecting the reproductive choices of a generation. In the 70s and beyond, many were soon convinced of their argument that population growth is the primary driver of environmental degradation. To commit to small families was the new narrative of the ultimate response to an ailing environment. This paper explores the failure of this to work due to the other factor, mass immigration, which has become a more powerful driver of growth in recent years. America continues to grow in population due to migration into the US, thereby undermining the ability of small family choices to achieve their original goal of population stabilization and reduction.

THE BENEFITS OF SMALLER FAMILIES

In addition to promoting sustainability by reducing demand on a finite environment, choosing to have zero, one or two kids has many personal benefits. Families can better afford to send their kids to college, take more vacations, and work less to spend more time with their offspring. On a societal level, less population growth translates into less traffic, less disruption from constant construction, less crowded cities, and less threats to wildlife – all of which contribute to an overall better quality of life. The problem is that those who helped get our birth rate lower have not reaped the collective benefits of a smaller population. Our cities are more crowded, our roads are more clogged, our National Parks need reservations months in advance and housing is in such great demand that only the very rich can compete in an inflated housing market.

GROWTH IN SPITE OF SMALLER FAMILIES

America’s fertility rates have fallen from 2.54 in 1970 to a comfortable 1.66 children per female today. This has happened due to a variety of reasons. They include: changing roles for women in society with increased career opportunities; rising costs of additional children; and concern about the future world available to their progeny due to climate change and political unrest. However, even after more than 50 years of American parents making the decision to reduce their family size, the US population has not stabilized. On the contrary, the US has gained over 140 million people since the first Earth Day in 1970. The mystery of a rapidly-growing population amid the effort to have smaller families seems puzzling at first. If the average family size has been shrinking since the 1960s, then why does the US keep growing? How did we add the equivalent of Russia’s population to our 50 states in just 55 years?

Despite their best efforts to tame the high rates of population growth, these families that committed to a better future did not account for the push to grow our numbers through mass immigration. Many argue that immigration doesn’t matter because the overall population of the world remains the same. True enough, but keeping limits on growth is a local challenge best addressed with local laws and enforcement. The US cannot be the release valve for other countries. It does little to help underdeveloped/overpopulated countries and causes much harm to our already bloated country, which currently has an estimated 342,300,000 people. Bangladesh is a prime example. It is a country of 167 million people crammed into a geographic area smaller than the state of Wisconsin. This is why it is awash in extreme poverty and suffering. If Wisconsin had that many people instead of the almost 6 million already living within its borders, it would also be a state exploding with pollution, poverty and suffering. From our vantage point in the US, there isn’t much we can do to help countries in the same overpopulated predicament. Even allowing 1 million people to emigrate legally to our country would do little to relieve their problems. It would however cause more problems here at home by adding to our already overpopulated nation.

We used to be able to have somewhat of an impact on international overpopulation before 1994, when the women’s movement shifted the focus from global population issues to women’s empowerment. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) used to be an avenue for addressing global overpopulation. But now it is focused mainly on the empowerment of women and making sure they can make their own choices…Continue reading the full Forum paper by clicking here.