Cutting the world's population in half: the plan that divides opinion

Some are asking where to sign up. The proposal to cut the world's population in half to save the planet, circulated these days through the Paraguayan press, has met with a troubling mix of ironic enthusiasm and administrative silence. So far, no one has explained which half would be the lucky one.

The idea is not new. Back in 1988, a diagnosis was already circulating that considered a Earth with five billion people unsustainable. That warning, now unearthed as evidence, remains unanswered: the world's population has kept growing and the dispute over the planet's real limit pits two camps against each other.

Distribution, not the headcount

One school of thought holds that the problem is not the number of people but the distribution of wealth. If 1% of the population hoards 99% of the resources, the flaw lies in distribution, not in the headcount. The resources, the argument goes, are enough to feed double or triple the current population; what is missing is the will to share them.

On the opposite side, supporters of drastic reduction believe any cut falls short. Some propose lowering the target to a tenth of the species, arguing it would leave room to maneuver. The cynicism of the proposal does not hide its internal logic: if the planet cannot keep up, fewer people means more resources per capita.

The question no one answers

Between irony and sarcasm, the uncomfortable question hangs in the air: which half of the population goes and which half stays? There is no technical criterion in the original proposal, only silence. And that silence is a political program in itself.

It is worth keeping the 1988 quote on file. If that diagnosis was correct with five billion people, humanity has spent decades playing Russian roulette with ever higher numbers. The unsettling fact is not that someone now proposes cutting the population in half; it is that we have long known something does not add up and still have not decided how to share what there is.