A group of international scientists is pushing a chilling plan to slash a staggering 4 billion people from the global population of humans to achieve what they describe as a "sustainable" future for those selected to remain on Earth.

The scientists made the call in a newly published study, reigniting alarm over the global depopulation agenda after the researchers argued that the Earth’s population should be cut roughly in half.

The study, authored by roughly a dozen researchers led by Columbia University’s Mark Keegan, contends that the world’s population must be culled to approximately four billion people by the year 2200.

"We show that slowing and gradually reversing population growth to ∼4 billion or less by 2200, while moderating per capita impacts, is the path toward sustainability," the authors wrote.

The researchers also called for reducing "per capita impacts," a reference to lowering individual consumption of energy, resources, and other goods.

Researchers Blame Humanity for Environmental Problems

The study argues that population growth is driving a wide range of environmental issues, including declining wildlife populations, rising carbon dioxide emissions, greater energy consumption, increased freshwater use, expanded mineral extraction, plastic production, pesticide use, and a growing ecological footprint.

"Global environmental problems are caused by people, nothing else," the authors asserted.

"The more of us there are, the greater our overall economic demands and the greater the associated environmental problems."

They concluded that continued population growth is fundamentally "unsustainable."

Using United Nations population projections, the researchers argued that humanity is on course to peak at between 9 billion and more than 11 billion people by the end of the century; levels they claim pose an unacceptable threat to long-term sustainability.

Calls for More Population-Control Policies

To accelerate population decline, the study recommends expanding access to what it describes as "reproductive health services," a term that commonly includes abortion alongside contraception.

The authors also call for improving girls’ educational opportunities, particularly in developing nations, as part of their strategy for reducing birth rates.

Beyond reducing population growth, they advocate additional government intervention aimed at lowering consumption through stricter land-use policies, pollution controls, energy-efficiency targets, and expanded limits on the extraction of natural resources ranging from fisheries to forests.

The researchers argue that even stronger measures may ultimately be required at the local, national, and international levels.

Critics Say Population Collapse Is the Real Threat

While the study warns of overpopulation, many demographers argue that the opposite problem is rapidly emerging.

Global fertility has already fallen dramatically.

The study itself acknowledges that the worldwide fertility rate stood at just 2.2 children per woman in 2024, barely above the replacement level needed to maintain stable populations.

Other researchers have warned that much of the developed world is already experiencing sustained below-replacement fertility, setting the stage for long-term population decline.

A major study published in The Lancet projected that the world could begin experiencing a steep population decline within decades.

Economist Dean Spears of the University of Texas Population Research Center has similarly warned that once fertility remains below replacement for an extended period, the world’s population could eventually shrink to "very small" numbers.

According to Spears and his co-authors, prolonged population decline could trigger widespread economic and social consequences, including shrinking workforces, reduced innovation, deteriorating infrastructure, labor shortages, declining mental health, and mounting pressure on healthcare systems caring for aging populations.

Even the World Economic Forum has acknowledged that large-scale population collapse could have "severe" consequences.

Debate Over Earth’s Carrying Capacity

The assumption that Earth cannot support its current population remains highly contested.

Research on the planet’s carrying capacity varies dramatically.

Some studies estimate Earth can sustainably support roughly 8 billion people, close to today’s global population.

Others conclude the planet could sustain 16 billion people or more, while several estimates place the number as high as 64 billion.

One study even projected a theoretical carrying capacity exceeding 1 trillion people under certain technological assumptions.

Past Predictions Failed to Materialize

Psychologist Jordan Peterson has frequently pointed to earlier warnings of catastrophic overpopulation that never came to pass.

Discussing predictions made decades ago by the globalist pro-depopulation Club of Rome, Peterson noted that many forecasts warned of mass starvation, riots, and societal collapse by the turn of the century because there were supposedly "too many people on the planet."

"That just didn’t happen at all," Peterson said.

"It wasn’t just wrong, it was anti-true.

"It was absolutely wrong."

Instead, Peterson argued, living standards improved dramatically around the world, with hundreds of millions of people escaping extreme poverty.

Author Eric Metaxas has similarly criticized modern overpopulation fears as descendants of Thomas Malthus’ population theory, which predicted that population growth would inevitably outstrip food production.

Environmental scientist Erle C. Ellis has also challenged the premise, arguing that advances in technology have repeatedly expanded humanity’s ability to support larger populations.

According to Ellis, history demonstrates that societies have consistently sustained populations well beyond what traditional Malthusian models predicted, leading him to conclude that there is "no such thing as a human carrying capacity" in any fixed sense.

The study nevertheless adds to a growing body of proposals advocating lower birth rates, reduced consumption, and expanded government intervention as solutions to global environmental challenges, recommendations that amount to another push for population control despite mounting evidence that many nations are instead confronting demographic decline.