💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 1421.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Population: The elephant in the room

VIEWPOINT

John Feeney

Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the

planet, warns John Feeney. In this week's Green Room, he calls on the

environmental movement to stop running scared of this controversial topic.

. Our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing

pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity

overshoot .

It's the great taboo of environmentalism: the size and growth of the human

population.

It has a profound impact on all life on Earth, yet for decades it has been

conspicuously absent from public debate.

Most natural scientists agree our growing numbers and our unchecked impact on

the natural environment move us inexorably toward global calamities of

unthinkable severity.

They agree the need to address population has become desperate.

Yet many environmentalists avoid the subject, a few objecting strongly to any

focus on our numbers.

Some activists insist acting to influence population growth infringes on human

rights; they maintain that it is best to leave the problem alone.

Let's dispense with this confused notion right now.

Yes, there have been past abuses in the name of "population control".

There have been abuses of health care and education too, but the idea of

reacting by abandoning any of these causes is absurd.

We can learn from past abuses, reducing the likelihood of fresh problems

arising in the future.

In fact, those working on population issues have done so. Today, they recognise

that the methods with the best track records of reducing population growth are,

by their nature, respectful and promoting of human rights.

They include educating girls and women in developing countries to help empower

them.

This is achieved by providing more options, using media strategies to make them

aware of alternatives regarding family sizes and family planning.

Those who oppose talking about the world's population are obstructing the

further provision of such services and resources.

Last chance saloon

Fundamentally, we need to ask what is the greater threat to human welfare: the

possibility that humane efforts to address population growth might be abused,

or our ongoing failure to act to prevent hundreds of millions, even billions,

dying as a result of global ecological collapse?

. Many now recognise the urgency with which we need to halt the human-caused

degradation of Earth's natural environment .

It's no far fetched possibility. Increasingly, environmental scientists insist

we have overshot the Earth's carrying capacity.

I believe they are right; the proof is everywhere. Our inability to live as we

do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation

is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot.

Overshoot, we know, is followed by population decline. As we have learned form

other species, this manifests itself initially with a crash.

For humanity, this portends a potential cataclysm exceeding anything in our

history.

Our chance to avert such an outcome depends on our ability to address our

numbers before nature reduces them for us.

There's no other way out. Merely reducing per capita consumption, for instance,

won't do it.

After all, per capita consumption levels multiply with population size to

determine our total resource consumption.

Just look at the data from the Global Footprint Network group. They estimate

that we'll remain in overshoot unless we also address population.

Solutions do not spring from silence. We must bring population back to the

centre of public discussion.

We need to break through the taboo to encourage not just a few voices but all

those with relevant expertise to speak out on the subject loudly and often.

Recently I wondered what would happen if all the scientists - and everyone else

considered a scholar of the population issue - spoke out all at once.

Would it help to weaken the taboo now shackling the subject, pushing it closer

to centre stage?

Would it bring the matter enough attention to begin generating new or more

widespread solutions?

Might it prompt a deeper examination of our ecological plight?

The Global Population Speak Out campaign has brought together over 100 voices

from 19 countries, all pledging to speak out publicly on the population issue

throughout the month of February, 2009.

Many now recognise the urgency with which we need to halt the human-caused

degradation of Earth's natural environment.

Can we break down a taboo that has for years blocked the path toward that goal?

Dr John Feeney is an environmental writer based in Boulder, Colorado, US

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running

weekly on the BBC News website

Do you agree with John Feeney? Is population growth a taboo topic among

environmentalists? Without addressing the issue, will it be impossible to

achieve sustainability? Or is resource consumption, rather than the number of

people, the real underlying problem?

We have had more than 1,500 comments on this article; unfortunately this is

many more than we can publish. We have done our best to provide a

representative sample of opinions. Thanks to everyone who wrote in.

Spot on John and very brave of you and the BBC to publish. It's quite scary to

see the comments from the people in denial. Years ago they would have been

insisting that the Earth was flat or that man had dominion over all other

creatures and the stewardship of the Earth. Well, as you said in your article,

all it takes is education.

John LIlley, Watford, UK

Basic arithmetic. 7 billion (current population of small planet) into Resources

(of small planet) just about 'goes' at a strain. 20 billion (not too distant

population on current trends) into same Resources does NOT go ! Especially if

each individual of future population increases its individual demand on

Resources. Result = Inhuman Death on massive scale, either naturally or via

War. Easy problem with obvious solution.

BILL, Oxfordshire

They've been talking about population reduction of 85% of us for quite some

time, folks. Watch out they're coming for us, don't let Obama take your guns.

This isn't a joke, you can laugh now but just remember that you've been warned

several times and you'll deserve what you get. I promise you if we don't act

soon the new world will be one that does not include you (or your children).

John, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

When I was a geography student in Cambridge in the 1970s, the catchphrase ran

"whatever your cause, it's a lost cause without population control". Tragically

that sentiment faded and was forgotten. It was not however a racist concept.

The most populous developed countries, such as the USA and UK, are even more

severely overpopulated than India, taking account of their available resources

and consumption levels. The reason the UK has a population imbalance and needs

more workers is that population grew too fast after WWII. Had a stable

demographic been achieved, then a population of a little over 50m might have

achieved an optimal society: but 60m is unsustainable and attempts to increase

the economically active population by immigration or any other means is

disastrous to the environment and everyone's quality of life. There are only

two ways to resolve this problem: either open debate and education, or a global

catastrophe most probably in the form of one or more pandemics.

Alan Brunstrom, Albury, NSW, Australia

I disagree with most of the people on here leaving their comments. I think that

all the doom and gloom predictions by the environmentalists will not come true.

Could we all afford to cut back on our resource usage? Absolutely. Does the

Western world use disproportionate amounts of resources? Yes. Is it going to

cause an end to the world as we know it? I doubt it. I am an eternal optimist,

and I think that humans will be able to invent technology to combat changes due

to "overpopulation". Necessity is the mother of invention, and when the drastic

problems predicted start to happen, we as the human race will solve them. And

no one is ever going to tell me how many children I can or can't have. At least

here in America, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Pete Moyryla, Ruby, AK, USA

Perhaps we should consider a cap-and-trade program for population. Allow each

couple a credit to have one child and they could either use it or sell it to

someone else or buy additional credits from couples who choose to remain

childless. If the market is good enough for controling carbon emissions, it

should be good enough for population control.

Kris, Los Angeles, CA

I am damned sick and tired at the elite licking their chops at the thought of

depopulating the earth by 6 billion souls, so the rest can be easily managed by

them. They keep pushing the agenda and pushing it, just like ever ready

batteries. They want us to live in austerity while they party hardy. I say

delete the elite.

Kim, Dallas

Didn't Malthus say this about 200 years ago? What happened then? Humans found

new sources of energy, and more efficient means of food production. You can't

assume that humans are like bacteria in a petri dish. Bacteria do not suddenly

discover oil or split the atom or build wind turbines. In order to adapt, other

species have to wait for their genes to mutate. Humans can just invent

solutions to solve problems. This theory is not radical. It is old-hat.

Brendan Fernandes, Brighton, UK

This is not a new ideology.. this is Malthusian Darwinian eugenics in shiny new

'green' wrapping...fast becoming the religion for the new age... Maybe those of

you advocating population reduction can do your part to 'save the earth' by

volunteering first

Ivan, Los Angeles

OK John, you have been granted permission by the powers that be to begin

decreasing the population. You will be going on live television, in front of a

worldwide audience, to make the first choice for the gas chamber. Who do you

pick? Someones son? Daughter? Mother? Yourself? Do you really think that

extermination...i mean population control...is a solution? Doesn't it feel more

like a concession? Don't you think we can do better than that if we put our

heads together? I once heard someone say that each person born is another

person who can help out.

Corey, Minnesota, USA

The problem of overpopulation is compounded by the fact that ignorant and low

mentality individuals typically reproduce at a much higher rate than educated

individuals which results in huge populations of people who simply cannot

understand why or how to practice birth control and who have no hope of being

able to provide for themselves or their offsprings. Continually providing food

and resources to these bursting populations without requiring contraception

only increases the suffering. Rational and intelligent people should

voluntarily reduce the size of their families and those who do not have the

mental capacity to understand this need should be compelled by law.

Rhonda Richardson, Lynchburg, Va., USA

Industrialization, consumerism, and overpopulation are a reality that will be

with us for a very long time, long enough, I think, that as a species intent on

thriving, we will eventually have to consider the need for a new, second home.

I don't think we will ever reduce the human population through social or

individual control. It will only ever increase, so long as medical advances

increase the individual life span, and so long as the technologically enhanced

lifestyle is embraced so fully by industrialized nations, used as a measure by

which 'less developed' nations are judged, and held up as the ideal to which

every nation is expected to aspire. Sooner or later, science will have to merge

with what at the moment is considered science fiction. In other words, we will

need to leave the Earth, and terraform Mars, Europa, Ganymede and other

planetary bodies. And, perhaps there, learn from the mistakes made on Earth.

The irony, of course, is that it would probably be the richer, industrialized

nations on Earth, who would be the first to leave.

Charles Benjamin, Edinburgh

Wow some people are extremely over-sensitive about this subject. Stop flying

off the handle people. The author is clearly a proponent of respectful ways to

address population growth such as education. No one is talking about regulating

how many babies you can have. It seems to me that promoting education around

the world on topics such as contraception would do a world of good separate and

apart from their potential value as ways to combat over-population. I certainly

think it's each family's right to decide if they want kids and how many kids to

have - but why shouldn't we want it to be an educated decision?

Lincoln, Hoboken, NJ, USA

While overpopulation is obviously a problem, it is naturally a problem that

solves itself. As many commenters have pointed out, the more educated an modern

a society, the lower its birth rate. Amusingly, some people think that the

negative population growth of France and Japan is a crisis, when in fact this

is obviously a positive thing since these populations are contributing to the

climate crisis our species will soon face MORE than the populations with

positive growth. The important thing for people to realize in this discussion

is that it is important for a society to ensure that its birth rate lowers as

it prospers (as in the case of China), instead of letting the population

naturally correct itself a generation or two after rapid economic growth when

the more resource-hungry offspring will deplete the country's resources

exponentially faster, as with the Baby Boom generation in the US which is

responsible not only for an embarrassingly-large portion of the US's

post-Industrial CO2 emissions, but also for an creating an impossibly-large

demand for resources which has led to an increasingly imperialistic US foreign

policy.

Chuck, Baltimore, USA

If people took notice to facts rather than the latest environmentalist

propoganda, they'd notice that a majority of developed countries are sitting

well below the replacement rate of fertility. That is to say, these countries

are not replenishing their population. Name a country, it is probably on that

list. Ask Russia or Spain or Italy what they think about a population

explosion. They'll laugh at you. A population explosion is not on the horizon,

rather we'll see population top out by 2050 and after that will begin a very

steady decrease. The real doom and gloom prospect we're facing is a rapid

increase in the average age (caused by increasing length of life and lesser

young people) which will treble any sort of medicaire/social security/

centralized healthcare problems we're facing now. But if we're prepared for it,

we can face it. Don't buy into the doom merchants with their fear tactics, the

facts are clear.

Kevin, Chicago, IL, USA

In the west it best to prepare the mind before introducing fascist 1 or 2 child

policies like in China. Soon we'll be paying for extra children like in China

and only the rich will be able to breed. Thanks for your inspiration Mao,

Hitler, Marie Stopes International Optimum Population Trust....

Alan, Ireland

People don't want to discuss population control since the negative eugenics of

Nazi Germany, and the sterilizations of thousands in America in the 1920s. We

need to discuss positive eugenics options - for example in the UK perhaps you

could get full child benefits for your first child, 70% of that for your

second, etc etc. This balances between those people that have 8 kids while on

benefits, and China's one child policy that has resulted in infanticide because

"the child was a girl and we need a boy" With obvious exceptions to people that

have twins, and that choose to adopt rather than bring a new kid into the world

when there are already dozens out there that need a safe home.Having children

IS a right. However, it is a right that comes with a very heavy responsibility.

Therefore it is not something that can be enforce, but something that should be

encouraged.

Sara, Hampshire, UK

Isn't the success of Homo sapiens built of a huge pyramid scheme. We need a

growing population to support and meet the needs of the current generation -

more food, houses, cars, longevity, medicine etc - which becomes an

unsustainable consumer (in the broadest sense) scheme. Yes - the 'west' is the

main culprit - and yes - its a global problem - but there is no polical/

economic body who can address the problem - like global warming. So we need to

take individual responsibility for our actions - its far far too easy to blame

politicians - look at the current economic situation to illustrate how

effective they really are.

Geoff C, Wiltshire, UK

This is not a problem caused by the poor nor by economics, although in the

current world both seem to contribute to the issue. Economics dictate that with

a restricted supply, if there is more demand, then there will be a rise in

cost. If population increases, and supplies peak, which is inevitable, the

increase in demand will increase the cost of survival. As poorer countries will

have less ability to acquire food in a directly competitive market, those will

be hit hardest.The problem may not be solely caused by poor, but they will

indefinitely suffer for it. Universal responsibility is needed to prevent a

world where the rich can afford food and the poor can not. If you are

personally one of the developed world and think you will be fine since you can

provide for your own, think about whether or not starving people will sit idly

by while others have and they do not. It is a considerable possibility that the

bloodiest wars that will ever be on the earth will not be over wealth or oil,

but over food and water. Consider that tragedy when you plan for your future

Chance Holzwart, Salinas, California, United States of America

Yes this is the only topic worthy of our attention because all others spring

from it. I applaud John's speak out. 7 billion can be wrong, very wrong

Don , South Island, New Zealand

your article highlights one area where greater liberty would lead to reduced

population growth, namely gender equality, the other two areas of freedom are:-

acceptance of contraception for all and acceptance of homosexual relationships

without moral restriction imposed by any organisations i.e. freedom for

individuals to make their own moral decisions - excessive population growth

will lead to increased resource depletion, food shortages, inadequate

sanitation and health care plus confrontation over a lack of resources fuelled

by protectionism......and there you have it - war, famine and

pestilence.....with some organisations insisting that contraception is morally

corrupt, descriminating against women and objecting fiercely to homosexual

relationships, surely that is just fuelling a self-fulfilling prophecy....oh

well "the line broke, the monkey got choked and we all went to heaven in a

little row boat, clap, clap"

deke, cardiff, wales

Consumption is only part of the problem, humans breed at an alarming rate, and

as medicine improves so does survival of our species. Third world contries

continue to be over populated and live in squalid conditions, unable to sustain

themselves in any way, dependent on weathier nations to support them. The

western world consumes because its rich and it can, but it seems to me that

whenever anyone from a "poor" country gets the chance to do the same, they do

it. Its not because of any moral stance that people in the developing world

consume less, they just don't have the funds. Those funds are in the hands of a

very few, who certainly have no problems living it up. Is there a problem with

a declining population in western countries, I don't think so, that is what

immigration is for. As to consumption, it is up to the individual to cut down,

its up to our governments to regulate their industries. People in the west

aren't lazy, in fact it seems that many work too much so that they can afford

all their over packaged, cheaply made, non-recyclable, luxuries. All the while

we watch as our society falls into disarray as we let our luxury items raise

our children, a job that seems that they are doing rather badly.

A. surette, Montreal, Canada

Certainly, population is one factor in the equation. The equation being: Total

resources used = Population x resources used per capita. Industrialized nations

such as US and UK use 10 times as much energy per capita, and 50 times as much

paper per capita when compared to developing countries, such as India. Since,

it is very difficult for people in industrialized nations to give up their

lifestyle, I encourage them to decrease their population.

Amit, Delhi, India

The silence on population growth has been going on too long and with terrible

consequences. We now have about 4 billion more people then in 1950 and we are

project to have 9.2 billion by 2050. The next question however, is not simply

is rapid population growth a problem for environmental sustainability, the next

question is what reduces average family size? The answer is clear; there is a

huge unmet need for family planning around the world and approximately 40% of

births worldwide are unintended. The sooner we create a world where every woman

can choose when and if to have a child, the sooner we will reach sustainable

population

Kate Bedford, San Francisco, CA USA

My gosh, yet another crises which demands that I give up more liberty? The hits

just keep on coming.

Scott Fox,

Anyone supporting this idea should consider joining Optimum Population Trust,

and supporting charities like IPPF and Marie Stopes International

Roger Plenty, Stroud

I am utterly shocked by some peoples comments proposing a drastic human

population reduction as the solution for problems that mostly exist in parts of

the world they have never seen or cared for. What about resource mismanagement?

What about the fact that we have today the technology to feed and raise the

quality of life of 2nd and 3rd world countries thus diminishing the birth rate

drastically to levels similar to those of developped countries? And this

"Something needs to be done urgently before millions starve." AH! I almost

ripped my eyes out. How about the millions that die already of starvation

YEARLY in most second and third world countries? Do you people even know what

you're talking about? Go read books ffs. Human overpopulation is a symptom and

most of you don't want to adress the causes.

Mathieu Funkle, Canada

I've been wondering about this particular "elephant in the room" for a while.

Population increasing logarithmically and infinite growth is not possible so

there is going to be a serious problem at some point, probably now. My wife and

I have agreed it would be increadibly irrisponsible to add to the worlds

already outrageous population level although it has always been our disire to

have children, not that it will matter. However necessary it may be, population

will never be controlled by human will, only by war, disease, and famine. If

you doubt me ask yourself this question, "Am I willing to have no children in

order to actually address this problem, or am I a hypocrite?" If you don't

think population is at the center of all our problems here on earth, your

wrong. Think about it.

Seth Brodie, California, USA

Perhaps we should move our reference to another species. Bees. In a summer

hive, if there is enough food, there are 50,000 bees. After a cold, bitter

winter, my hive has 10,000. Dead bees litter the entrance. If I put too many

hives in a area with insufficient food then the bees become weak. In a cold

winter mites and fungal disease further weaken the hive. More bees die. In

spring I have an empty hive. So we have a choice. Intelligent design or natural

selection. In this discussion, the religious crowd appear to be heading for

natural selection.

Bernard Newland, Portland, Oregon, USA

It is very unfortunate that the basically racist notion that population

increase is responsible for most problems on earth is making a come back. The

economy is expanding many many times faster than the population - economic

growth poses a far greater threat than population growth. As long as the rich

consume wastefully, they have no moral right to preach to the poor to reduce

population! In any case, as long as we dont reduce consumption, reducing

population wont help. To understand why, imagine a garden with 99 cacti and 1

lotus plant in a pond - most of the water requirements of this garden arises

from the consumption of the lotus - no matter how many cactus you eliminate,

the total consumption is not going to change till the lotus is trained to live

on less water - the same holds for the world. No matter how many less poor

Indian or poor Chinese or poor African we have, it is not going to change the

total CO2 emmision or energy consumption till people of USA and to a slightly

lesser extent Europe (and the rich in the poor counties too) revise their

life-styles and consumption patterns.

Moony Shen, Marseille, France

Overpopulation has been a taboo subject, but needs to be addressed. The

carrying capacity of the Earth has been exceeded and the human population will

lessen with time. We have no choice concerning this. The only choice we have is

to either let things go as they are now and face horrible famines the world has

never seen before, with accompanying wars, mass migrations, etc. Alternatively,

we can control our population worldwide and reduce our numbers via family

planning. The record of our species doesn't look encouraging. Humans, like most

species, will simply use all resources available to increase in numbers until

the resources are gone and starvation and disease lower the population density.

I hope this will not be the mechanism by which our numbers are reduced.

Rodney, Baltimore USA

A huge thank you for finally bringing this to a mass audiance! When ever I

mention over population in conversation I get shouted down by women screaming

"It's my RIGHT to have a child!" It's no one's right to have a child. It's a

natural process. I have chosen not to have them because I will not be a

hypocrit but we are doomed it we do not do something to limit the future

population. I don't mean in a Nazi superior race way but in a senseable we must

do this or we will drive ourselves to extintion way.

Susan, London UK

I don't think human population is going "off-hand". Nature is a feedback

machine. Whatever we input, we get the proportionate output. It is in the very

"nature" of nature to survive itself. If something in its machinery is

detrimental (like the human population burst), it will find an alternate by

itself. We, on the other hand feel irrational enough not to be guilty on our

tampering, should just accept our rewards (diseases, natural disasters, etc.)

It is the self realization that plays a crucial role. But no human have any

control on his fellows. Let us just be the way we believe to be right, and

accept silently, the rewards.. God bless you all.. Amen..

Ahamed, Chennai, India

Surely it's quite natural for the population of man to fluctuate according to

environmental conditions. This is what happens to all species. If I were to try

to set goals for mankind I don't suppose that "having the maximum number of

people" would be one of them. As long as mankind survives, is there a problem?

I'm not sure this is an issue at all.

Jim, Herefordshire

This is most definately an issue that needs to be discussed. Women (and some

men) need to realise that actually no, they do not have some almighty "right"

to have children. Just last week a woman in the USA gave birth to octuplets,

even though she already had six other children. This did not happen naturally,

but through that wonder of modern medicine, IVF. My fianc and I would of

course love to have children through the usual means, but we have already

decided that if nature denies us that option then we will adopt, period. There

is much we can offer a child, and many children out there to whom we could

offer it. Raising a family is about more than mere genetics, it is about

passing on standards and ideals, and the above might be a good one to start

with.

Steven, Manchester, UK

Deep space is deep enough for all of us, why not go there?

Pieter Vermeersch, Dendermonde, Belgium

Absolutely right. We MUST control our population. It's a no brainer. If we

value human life, if we want quality of life, we cannot breed in plague

proportions. And why is it that those who exercise restraint are always the

ones asked to bail out peoples who don't?

Russell Hicks, Caterham, UK

With all due respect, John Feeney's view is hypocritical. Population is in

decline in many parts of the western world like France, Germany and Japan. How

can a western thinker lecture the world on population and environment when a)

The population in many western societies is in dangerous decline, b) Western

populations are buoyed by immigration from other societies, and c) Western

societies are the biggest consumers of resources and manufactured products in

this world. (Products that are sourced globally I might add). Sadly, the

developed world has never known wealth of the masses like the West has. Global

poverty has never been eradicated. The placing of population and environment on

the global agenda is clearly a western agenda prompted in part by the

preeminent rise of emerging economies like China and India whose resultant

potential for consumption the West fears. Isn't it time for the West to admit

that it is underestimating the need for procreation within its own borders and

over estimating the consumption of peoples in the developing world? Isn't it

time the West was careful who it lectured to?

Yehuda Newman, Modiin, Israel

Taking per capita CO2 emmissions, per capita water or energy comsumption or any

similar index, a person in such countries like USA, UK or Autralia has a

negative impact on the environment 10 to 20 times that of a Haitian, an

Ethiopian or an Indonesian. Furthermore, much of the deforestation in third

world countries is carried out to meet the the demand of rich countries for

such commodities like meat, soya and palm oil.

Carlos Veloso, Bras lia, Brazil

For anyone who does not understand the validity of John Feeney's concern, try

conducting this simple experiment at home or in the lab... Ingredients: 1.)

Petri dish 2.) Warm water/nutrient mix 3.) Bacteria Process: 1.) Pour the water

/nutrient mix into petri dish. 2.) Introduce a small sample of bacteria on the

dish. 3.) Wait 4.) Behold the brilliant explosion of life 5.) Behold the fast

apocalypse The bacteria have 3 main problems: First they are greedy. They do

not save any resources for the future and they consume as much as possible to

benefit in the short run. Second, they have no sustainable resources. As they

consume they deplete, until there is nothing left. Third, there are no

restraints on reproduction. In a finite space, when each bacteria reproduces to

its fullest capacity and there are no natural predators, the population will

naturally implode on itself. In a sense the bacteria become their own worst

enemy. We are only different from the bacteria in the petri dish in that we

have an ability to make predictions based on observed patterns in the natural

world. If we are to survive, we must learn how to balance our space, resources,

population and waste in the small petri- dish-of-a-planet we call Earth.

Matt, Stockholm, Sweden

This article forgets to mention that overpopulation is only a problem in

developing countries. Increasing wealth, better education, family planning and

women's rights are all indispensable measures that will "naturally" lower

natality. All these measures are, in a large proportion, the role of the

government. Unfortunately, as we all know, that is the weak point of all

developing countries. So let us concentrate on our own problems, namely a

natality rate that is too low and needs to be stimulated by correct welfare

measures to help parents be able to lead an active life as well as a

responsable parenthood.

Dimitri M., Switzerland

There is no overpopulation 'problem', except in the eyes of eugenicists and the

dominant elite who control the media. Stop insulting our intelligence with this

malthusian rubbish. Climate change is a fraud based on junk science to push

more taxes on the people.

thought_criminal,

Overpopulation is a problem, the solution however is not to tell people how

many children they are allowed, this sounds far too dictatoral. But should

governments offer incentives to those with none or fewer children...

Kenny Mack, Aberdeen, UK

Sure, increasing population is a burdon on natural resources -but it could also

be seen as providing a larger intellectual base to solve such problems as well.

However, the evidence seems to suggest that the richer people get the less

children they wish to have. So perhaps it would be better to look at population

more productively than just as passive consumers or a burden on recources. What

seems to get forgotten isthe effect of Malthus -who used the population

argument to support rapacious capitalism. Something which is very relevant

today.

trevor batten, Manila.ph

OF COURSE we need population control! and right now. For centuries we have

culled excess population through war, famine and disease. Does anyone those

methods serve human rights?

Judith Stainsby, Port Moody, BC, Canada

Population is *the* major environmental issue and something does need to be

done to create awareness of a woman's right to not have children regardless of

what their society thinks. There needs to be a male contraception injection to

compliment the oral contraception pill- it's got to be reliable, it's got to be

cheap and it's got to be used. We need to overcome this insane need to

reproduce when there are plenty of us and we need to overcome the squirmishness

about abortion. Unfortunately, I've just listed the reasons that such an

approach will never be taken.

Tracy, Napier, New Zealand

Admirable as it is to promote woman's procreative rights, family planning

choices etc around the world, it will have little effect as long as religious

and communal authorities continue to press women into childbearing roles.

Reproducing is almost an obsession in some parts of the world, and the mere

suggestion that you don't want children is treated with horror/ suspicion.

Cultural barriers need to be broken, which requires patience and understanding;

both in short supply globally. Scientists need to cross the bridge to religious

leaders and start a dialogue.

Matthew Adams, Cairo

I agree. We had lots of discussion about over-population till the early 1970's

then all went silent. We know it is worse now not better. The idea was to deal

with it through education. Obviously that alone was not enough. China, to its

credit bit the bullet and acted, but so far, other countries who cannot support

their populations have not responded with adequate solutions. No child should

feel unwanted or have to starve because of ignorance or lack of legislation.

While China imposed a hard thing on the families by its one child law, every

child there is wanted and cherished and well provided for. It is not a perfect

solution but nothing is. Definately no person should have more children than

they can afford to support, however, the trouble with this is, situations

change. People loose jobs. People get divorced. Education and talking about it

is an important step but other measures are required. I don't know what could

be done but there needs to be dialog.

Pam W, Brisbane, Australia.

The less the humans on Earth, the better, Definitely. This is not only pro

environment and pro natural habitats, but also the only long term sustenance

model. And wars too are mainly over resources right? We all need to learn to

use less...

Vinay Hinduja, India

The article barely scrapes the subject. To begin a discussion it should attempt

at least a short analysis of the problem. Where are the problem areas, why, who

is doing something and what. Just stating "there is a problem" isn't worth much

if you don't suggest any solutions.

Yen M. , Kuching, Malaysia

Human beings are a wonderful resource. The demographic transition model shows

improving opportunities and reducing income inequality naturally reduces birth

rates. Human beings are not the problem, they are the solution. Perhaps Dr

Feeney would be better to actually look at the statistics rather than having a

wild guess. Do they hand out doctorates for linear thinking in the USA?

Richard Gilby, Tequisquiapan, Mexico

Being from and living in a developing country, I have had close contact with

this world's issue. I have spoken with women with low income whom become

pregnant and most of them respond it happens not because they don't acknowledge

the diverse birth control methods, but because their partner with a "macho"

attitude makes them have the baby, making them feel guilty if they don't want

to end up pregnant, as though they were saying with such action they do not

love the man. These ladies, feel guilty and do not want to loose their man,

ending up in many cases pregnant. Sadly, most of the men "magically" forget

what they have said and disappear, taking zero responsibility of the new

creature they have helped create. Most of these children repeat their parents'

footsteps, getting caught in the vicious cycle. Seeing so many children brought

into the world and so many parents with already too many children to care for,

it makes me wonder if I should even have a child of my own, or simply adopt to

give a better life to a child already born. What is the point if bringing in

more lives on this planet if they will not be able to enjoy the beauty of it? I

feel very strongly that something does need to change, change which must be

drastic to have a real impact. Though, what can be done? What shall we do? What

will happen with all these children and future leaders of the world?

Annie, Bogot , Colombia

It is not rocket science to calculate that a person today consumes 1000% more

energy than his/her counterpart of 100 years ago. The world CANNOT sustain

present levels of population growth, the result is simple, end of the world as

we know it. Where is all the food and water coming from to feed exponential

population growth? Wind turbines and riding a bike to work are not the answers.

Religous arguments against contraception should be dismissed immediately as

they have no place in an educated civilised society

T.Nicholson, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Here in India, soon to be the world's most populous country, perceptions of

population have changed significantly in the last few decades. In the 60's and

70's overpopulation was acknowledged as one of the country's most significant

problems and there were several efforts to curb growth. One of these efforts,

forced/coerced sterilization, during Indira Gandhi's Emergency years, clearly

went too far, and thus undermined future population control initiatives. Then,

in the 90's as the economy took off and liberalization took hold, a number of

influential people began to speak of India's burgeoning masses as an advantage

rather than a hindrance. One billion people, they said, would transform this

country into a strong and developed nation. Even today many academics and

journalists talk about India's "demographic advantage". At at the age of 27, I

am already within the older half of the population. What most people who got

caught up in the "one billion strong" hysteria of the last 15 years did not

realize is that today's boom usually turns out to be tomorrow's bust. We're

seeing one today with the global economy, and the economic cycle is usually

short - measurable in years. With populations, it takes generations for effects

to be felt. When India's half-a-billion under-25's become old, the whole

country may just unravel. Along with one billion people, we also have hundreds

of gods here in India. We will need every single one of them when the

population bomb explodes.

Sid Lahiri, Bombay, India

Everyone seems to be in agreement that population reduction is necessary but

with religious objections to sensible birth control measures we'll probably

head towards the Apocalypse Predicted in certain holy books.

Ken Balfour, Bangkok

Yes, finally someone has HIT this BIG nail, smack right on its head. Political

leaders and economists never speak of over-population because of their short

sighted vision & approach. Environmentalists are too concerned by over

consumption in West to address this vital issue. Thanks to John for bringing

the issue for hopefully addressing it.

Sid, Delhi, India

Instead of culling and forced sterilisation, would it not be better to limit

the per capita amount of world's resources available to the developed and

highly industrialised nations? I think this line of thought is part of an

effort to lay the blame on poor countries, which, although overpopulated, still

consume far less than the West and somehow manage to live on what they have.

This is not true of North America and Europe. Also, it seems to me that all

those who moan about the Earth being overcrowded believe THEY are somehow

special; it is always someone else who should be subjected to these insane

measures. And another thing; if bureaucrats are allowed to interfere with what

is given to us by nature, it will not be long before the idea of killing

surplus population pops up. And then what? So, will all those worried about

overpopulation please commit suicide and help save the environment by setting

an example, instead of hypocritically denying others of what they take for

granted?

Milos Milosev, Belgrade, Serbia

Overpopulated? BAN Alcohol and the problem will solve itself

Alan Berger, Sandhurst

At last! We see the Elephant! It is blindingly obvious that we must control

population growth. The humman race is the first biological system with the

ability to control its own reproductive rate. All biolgoical empires rise and

fall again as they outstrip their food/water/energy supplies. We, humans, have

survived by increasing use of technology to overcome natural shortages, but at

the price of massive destruction of the environment of the planet. Inevitably

as population grows we will come to a point where we have outstripped our

resources and the population will then die back as starvation and drought

becomes the norm. Sounds apocalyptic but it is the inevitability of exponential

population growth. (think about an (empty) African termite mound per example)

Sustainability should mean a stable population, each member with an adequate

standard of living, on a planet that has not been stripped bare. (Whales, Tuna,

Cod. Water in the Jordan River, Amazonian rain forests, habitat for the other

species with whom we share this planet: all of these are rapidly

disappearing!.) I'm sorry Tracy from Toronto, but fundamentally I completely

disagree with you. Yes the west does use a disproportionate amount of

resources, but population excess is a planetary problem.

Russell M, Blackpool

i've often pondered this topic myself, and usually come to the conclusion that

human rights and our natural compulsion to help our fellow man might someday be

our undoing. for example no matter how unsustainably food is grown in africa we

keep sending food aid, even suggesting not doing so would result in a huge

uproar, condemning those people to death, so we send food to maintain that

population. the australian nobel laureate howard florey, whose work enabled

penicillin to be produced in large quatities expressed his concern about the

rise in population resulting from improved healthcare. i have to agree with

him, and add that food aid also seems to maintain excessive populations.

Ben Jarvis, Okayama, Japan

I quite agree with Mr.Feeney and its been my pet peeve for some time. If you

look at it in economic terms too, for a small island like Jamaica, the more

slices the pie has to be sliced, the smaller the slices. So, we need to manage

population growth as part of any integrated economic or ecological plan. The

greatest enemy of conservation is poverty, and where there is uncontrolled

population growth, all manner of problems, social as well as environmental,

break out. We are ignoring this basic underlying threat to our fragile planet

to our peril. This matter needs to be raised at the highest policymaking level

on a worldwide basis, and it wont be easy, but then nobody said saving the

planet (from ourselves in this case) was going to be.

karl Aiken, Kingston, Jamaica

While I do believe that the global population should be responsibly and

respectfully reduced I am quite upset at the one sided approach to all this.

While it may be true that it is the developing nations that have the most rapid

population growth, it is undoubtedly the people in the developed nations that

have the most impact in terms of environmental damage, consumption of finite

resources and pollution. What is the point in telling a couple in a poor Asian

or African country or anywhere for that matter, to have less children when ten

of their children will not come close to using the amount of resources as two

children born in North America or Europe. Reducing population growth is

meaningless if nothing is done to change the lifestyle of excess.

Tony, Cayo, Belize

Any attempt to discuss this topic tends to be squelched by zealously

politically correct retorts. But environmental protection depends on our

addressing these issues. Further, I find it remarkable, in view of the numbers

on human population growth, that many governments still give subsidies for

childbirth, tax breaks for parents, and comparatively punitive taxation for the

single and non-parents. We need to shift to an economic and social model of

sustainability and population growth is not in this vein. Also, it is

surprising that educated people continue to have sometimes 3 or more children.

In order to keep the wild, natural places of our world safe, we need to reduce

our numbers or at the very least stop increasing them. In view of our current

troubles with nature, I'm tired of hearing parents with the attitude that their

child comes first, regardless of anyone else's need - and they seem to abound

in the past 15 years.

Lisa, American in Hong Kong

While I don't disagree that many environmentalists avoid discussing population,

I do think John Feeney oversimplifies the interactions between consumption and

population. The Ecological Footprint data Feeney refers to suggests that a

sustainable population depends on how much we consume. If we all live as

consumers, we're already more than three times the carrying capacity. At a

moderate level of consumption, the Earth could sustain about 6 billion

(compared to the 6.8 billion present today) and at an impoverished level about

13.6 billion--though because we keep depleting natural capital, this number

will decline each year. So we need to rapidly discuss both these taboo topics:

consumption and population. A primary goal of the environmental community

should be to encourage people to consider carefully both their reproductive

choices and their consumption choices. And no, not all environmentalists are

silent on population. I have been writing a series of essays on population,

consumption and other environmental topics for World Watch magazine which you

can read here: www.livingearthethics.org.

Erik Assadourian, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC

I fully agree. The ones who can be the leaders to solve this worldwide problem

are the Pope,the Ayatollah and several other churchleaders.Just to tell their

followers to have no mre than 1 or 2 children just like in China. And also

permitting girls and women to have abortions. It would probably be sufficient.

Hettie, Hengelo, Netherlands

Food has been made for man. Now, on the earth, there is four or five time more

food than human beings. Problem is not about the amount of men. Problem is in

the nature of our stewardships of all ressources.

Matthieu Klopfenstein, Bienne, Switzerland

I believe that population explosion is at the heart of all environmental and

economic issues. We are stripping the earth of its resources, polluting it and

changing its climate because of the constant need to grow economies to keep

pace with increasing demand for more food, energy, housing and jobs.

kiwidavid, New Zealand

I do agree. The argument makes a lot of sense to me. Not knowing this history,

I wondered what the "abuses" were. Browsing 1970s magazines you see references

to the Zero Population Growth movement. It makes so much sense. I think we even

need to shrink our human population. Not having any children myself, feel

unashamed to make this argument. I wonder what went wrong for this movement.

Ed Hemlock, London, England

It's hardly a taboo - talk of over-population goes back at least to Malthus,

and in more modern times has been widely discussed for at least thirty years.

My understanding is that population levels drop as economic situations shift

from subsistence farming (in which large families are an advantage) to

industrial (in which large families are a disadvantage). Resource distribution

and consumption is far more of a problem than the absolute numbers of people

which in any case can best be controlled by working toward a stable industrial

society in which large numbers of children don't die in infancy, it becomes

very expensive to have and raise children who, in addition, are not needed to

provide labour to support the family. It helps a lot if the society is wealthy

enough so that the elderly can be cared for even if they don't have adult

children to provide all their support. Providing birth control information

isn't going to be particularly helpful in reducing population levels in

societies in which there are excellent reasons to have large families.

Improving life in every way from food distribution to economic development will

provide all the motivation needed to decrease population size - look at the

parts of Western countries who aren't even maintaining their populations

through their birthrates!

Cheryl, Canada

I strongly disagree. Articles like this underline the fascist nature of eco/

green movements. Nature is in a constant state of change, and some call this

proces evolution. The climate changes, population changes, and the world of

tomorrow cannot be the same as the world of yesterday. Humans are a part of

nature, and not aliens on this plant. Environmentalists remind me of evangelist

preachers: "repent, because the end is near". In fact, there is no end, only

change. This point of view is the real taboo for the media.

J.Popovic, Toronto, Canada

Serious population CONTROL should have been exerted compulsorily decades ago.

The Chinese had the right idea with the one child policy, it should be

instituted in the western world with heavy fines for transgressors, and in the

third world with trade sanctions against nations that do not enforce it. As the

planet's resources are dwindling and the world's population increasing, it is

blindingly obvious that we are heading for a train wreck of cataclysmic

proportions, with suffering which will make violations of personal freedom of

choice look like a minor inconvenience. Charles Hipser

Charles Hipser, NYC USA

Of course the total population matters. It's just a difficult sell in societies

that face a collapse of the pension system without any children to care for

their ever longer-living parents (sometimes kept alive at incredible costs to

the environment). Unfortunately, the best way to reduce the number of children

people have is to put them in Western, urban conditions (which also need

reforming). Witness China and India with their terrifying male surpluses.

Simply informing women on how to control their fertility is not enough -- they

must want less children, which means creating societies where children are no

longer the sole old-age pension. Again, that means the wasteful Western model,

where people invest in money and goods rather than offspring. And even more

female hormones in the rivers means further environmental degradation for

possibly but little benefit population-wise. There are more taboos to overcome

than merely the reduction of the population.

Stefaan Eeckels, Harlange, Luxembourg

When I was growing up, there was a huge push to contain the population, with

Zero Population Growth at the forefront. Since then there has been virtual

silence on this matter, while the earths population continues to grow

unchecked, and I kept wondering why. This is an issue as important as global

warming, and needs urgent attention and action

James Barnett, Madoc, Ontario Canada

John is exactly right. This discussion was urgent in the 1960's, as pointed out

in the article that coined, "Tragedy of the Commons". It's even more urgent

today. With limited resources in the world, reproduction is a social issue

whether you admit it or not. Without a social agreement on how to keep our

numbers sustainable (and how to punish those who violate that social

agreement), we will suffer the horror of a population crash, devastating our

environment on the way. There is simply no excuse to delay this discussion any

longer.

Devin McLennan, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Considering the fact that the world population has doubled in the last 30 years

it is only a matter of time before before this issue blows up in our face. So

many of our activities at an international, national and personal level are

proving to be unsustainable and it will take strong leadership to tackle this

issue head on. Im hoping President Obama will assume this role. I am optimistic

that we can overcome this challenge but am fearful that it will take a

katastrophic event/events for us to see the light.

Dave , Dundee

There are a number of mechanics to limit human growth but strangely even the

Chinese limit on the number of children has failed to have the desired effect.

High mortality leads to higher birth rates which is normally controlled by

disease, famine or other means. Porritt's pontifications shows he knows no

answers either. Mans interference with the natural controls in IVF, medicinal

or medical means, the cultural differences in various countries means that

ultimately the only controller is the earth. The Volcanic eruptions 75000 years

ago reputedly left only a small population, the black death in the 15th century

which killed 30% of the population. Humans need to understand that when the

world no longer can support us we will die. That is all there is to it.

Tony, Welling Kent

Never has a "taboo" been so exposed for the past 200 years. And never has such

a question been answered by anything else than eugenism. And it always start

with some good sense, but also somewhere over there, for "those poor people who

cannot get fed properly". If you want to educate women, educate women. If you

want to empower women, empower them. By the way, it is as much a question for

men. But leave every one of us alone with our conscience for the number of

human being. It is not a question of belief or religion. I, for one, has none,

am not baptatised in any and think that the aim of a human being is to know

rather than believe. Human beings are not a parameter. And there are always too

much human beings for those who dispise them. Berst regards,

Bruno Cl mentin, Saint-Etienne, France

I'm so glad to see there are those trying to bring this subject into light.

Something I've been concerned about for so many years. Programs need to be put

in place giving women strength and education, starting with the avoidance of

unwanted / unplanned pregnancies, which are in many cases a burden on economy

and are unfair to all parties involved. Good Luck.

Ryan, Salt Lake City, USA

Feeney's argument is generally rubbish. Look around the world: who consumes the

vast majority of foodstuffs and energy despite being severely in the minority

population-wise? The US, Canada and Europe. Income and wealth redistribution,

or at least truly fair access to int'l trade markets for commodities -

especially those produced in the 3rd World - would go a long way towards

curbing notions that human population is experiencing 'runaway growth'. With

Feeney's attitude and those of the others that belong to this elitist cabal,

what we really should do is what Indira Ghandi did in India in the late 70s:

round up all the poor people, castrate the males, sterilise the females and be

done with it; treat the world's poor as if they're not just a problem but a

menace/plague akin to locusts and worms; eradicate them all. Feeney might do

well to put his money where his mouth is and have his tubes tied if he wants to

set such an important example. Arrogant bastard.

Paul M, Kyiv, Ukraine

I keep reading about places being family friendly, but few people ever consider

that this also pulls away resources from the individual. I could never

understand just why people go on about the family being the foundation of

civilization, while it is large families that are eating in to all of our

resources. It was because of this kind of concent that I became vegetarian in

1970. Isn't it about time that people started thinking about how we can only

save this planet by taking on some individual resposiblites, such as being

vegetarian, & not having any children of their own. The family is dead ! Long

live the family !

Martyn Lowe, Islington

about time too. population is the elephant in the eco-room. but i would add

that it is not only scientsts, scholars, people with 'expertise', etc who have

a relevant opinion in this issue. what about ordinary voters?

nick welch, london

At this point, no. Calamity is simply a matter of time. We're a species that

was created by the same rules as any other on the planet, but we do not

practice Darwinism as a rule for ourselves because that would be wrong. Our

weakest in many cases are the ones that procreate the most in the "civilized"

world, others simply foot the bill, our most educated have the least. You would

have to not only discuss birth control methods, but the realities of nature

that are only cool in the third person on the discovery channel. The only

things left to discuss is how bad off will the planet be, when, and in what

form the inevitable balancing act nature will play out on us be.

Wayne, New Castle, DE - US

As the late Bill Hicks said: - I'm sick and tired of this "Isn't humanity

great?" bull*&%#. We're just a virus with shoes... As a species we are already

responsible for wiping out numerous other lifeforms on this planet. I hope we

are not dumb enough to lay the foundations for our own demise. Even the

dinosaurs did better than that.

Richard Keen, Den Haag, Netherlands

I'd ask author to name a country (any single one) with sustaining GROWING TEMPO

of population growth. And only then we'd have a talk about sweet and

sensational taboo breaking. JaneZ, from the part of the world with

below-replacement fertility

JaneZ, Surgut, Russia

Mr. Feeney is mistaken. There is right now an enormous underutilization and

misappropriation of our world's resources. This is the real cause of social

injustice and poverty. The earth can sustain many, many more people if we

simply take care of it and use it well, and preaching population control as the

answer to everything is, frankly, naive and foolhardy.

Matthew, Baltimore, U.S.A.

The world is, in effect, a ship in which we all sail. Overload any floating

vessel and it will eventually cease to float. Of course there are already to

many human beings on this earth. As a consequence of which we are increasingly

fighting amongst ourselves for ever diminishing resources. And more tragically

still, in the course of that unthinking scramble for land/minerals/water we are

responsible for the extinction of so many other living creatures and plantlife,

thereby reducing the very bio-diversity upon which are future almost certainly

depends.

Mark , Bristol

Overpopulation in poor areas is driven by subsistence needs and can have very

different environmental consequences from those of the overconsumption of the

affluent, though they overlap. Thus Freeny is correct that both are serious

problems, and we cannot neglect the population problem if any progress is to be

made. The Chinese government is the only one that has really dealt with the

problem, and the unpopularity of that policy in the West is probably related to

the failure of mainstream environmental movements to address the problem.

Brian Lander, New York, USA

With a single sentence, the Pope could make such an impact.

Brad, Zurich, Switzerland

It sounds like good rhetoric, but what is the plan? I don't think that

contraceptives alone is going to cause that great of an impact. Even in my town

in the US, where everyone received sex education in school and condoms and

birth control are available for anyone who goes to a clinic, girls are getting

pregnant in high school. Others have their third or fourth kid in their early

twenties and are already milking the welfare system. The problem goes much

deeper than simply education and providing resources.

Ryan, Maine, USA

It's about time! Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but I wonder if religion

is going to stand in the way of basic human dignity and common sense, when so

many major religions fail to embrace any real family planning or birth control?

Shannon Edwards, Tucson, Arizona

I completely agree that population control is a must-tackle issue, but John

omitted the main reason for the silence about it -- politics. Developed

nations, most if not all of which are facing low birth rates, want nothing to

do with it because implementing such a policy means being inevitably overrun by

waves of migration from poorer regions of the world, and the collapse of their

institutions and even cultures. Powers that be of the developing world are too

busy plundering their countries to really give a damn if thousands or millions

die from disease and starvation, Zimbabwe is case in point. The only way to

tackle this issue, as uncomfortable this notion is for most Westerners, is to

spread the wealth, elevate the standard of living in the developing world,

dramatically boost the level of education and technology there. The world's

most powerful countries must either face this fact and develop a long-term

strategy for bringing this about. Either do this or terra-form Mars and Venus,

which would solve the problem, at least temporarily. Unfortunately, we are

nowhere near the latter option becoming reality.

Jay T., San Antonio, TX

Resource consumption is bound to increase with population increase. Everywhere,

but, especially, in third-world countries, women (and men, too) need to be

educated about the immorality of unlimited procreation.

H. MacEwen, Kuala Lumpur

I agree whole heartedly. Blind imperialism and capitalism throughout the ages

has worked tirelessly to use religion as a growth tool. This problem has its

roots many thousands of years back in human history and must be confronted. Any

rancher/herder knows that you can only raise x number of livestock with x

number of land and water. A global plan to combat population growth is probably

more important than any other environmental plan or topic.

Jeff Woolsey, Loveland Colorado

Ask anyone who works with "real things" in this world like water treatment,

farming, waste disposal, forestry, etc. We are already in a perilous situation.

As long as "sheep people" the world over, keep listening to those controlling

voices, like the pope, who claim to be translating for god, we will remain in

many of the messes we find ourselves in. These are the people who burn books,

and would kill someone who claimed that the earth was round and not flat, just

a few hundred years ago. We have no chance to stop our march to extinction

unless we address the education system in all countries of the world. The

George Bushes of the world allowed "faith based creationism" taught in our

schools so we can maintain a healthy number of people who will never understand

cause and affect. Science can predict and explain much, but if the morons are

not required to listen and learn, they will all keep breeding, for they see it

as a contest, for they are producing "children of god". It is very politically

incorrect to state, but the numbers show us that thinking people are not making

babies at even a fraction the rate as "faith based" sheeple. God help us all.

Nick Wimett, La Madera New Mexico USA

I agree completely with Mr. Feeney. Having lived in places such as India and

Pakistan, I have come to understand the severity of the need to reduce the

overall population to make the world a better, cleaner place in which to live.

There has been definite progress in population reduction in some areas of the

world, however, not addressing the issue of population control in places where

it is desperately needed is condeming the world to an ever greater loss of

resources, landspace and sanitation. I believe that if more people realise that

population control is an effective way to curb exponential population growth,

then we will be on our way to achieving the Millennium Development Goals which

have been set out by the United Nations to ensure that every person on earth

has the same basic needs administered to.

Ria, Bangkok, Thailand

I completely agree. The increasing population directly has an impact on the

global environment and this is something that needs to be addressed. In

addition to this, it is fairly evident that the wealthier countries in the

world have better control of population growth. While this could also be an

effect of wealth, I believe it is a huge cause of wealth as well. By addressing

the problem of population growth, we not only help solve our environmental

problems but we also help end poverty.

Tanner Boyd, San Antonio, Texas (USA)

Is there really "opposition" to talking about population growth? The assumption

in this article seems to be that "talking about" population growth

automatically implies reduction. That may well be the ultimate conclusion, but

responses like Dr. Feeney's "Let's dispense with this confused notion right

now" obstruct the possibility of a discourse that is able to come to grips with

the complex question of what constitutes human rights -- particularly in light

of the intertwined histories of rights and Western individualism. Yes, if there

is a taboo on talk it should be addressed; however, the unquestioned assumption

that our Western, modern conception of which priorities humanity should set for

itself (as reflected, for example, in our own low or negative population growth

rate) is somehow "natural" or "universal" strikes me as fundamentally

problematic.

Jeff, Canada

I agree. Only advocating the use of new technology to boost food production

won't do - the Universe might be expanding, but the planet isn't. And it's

about time somebody had the guts to confront the one they call the pope on

this.

Rob, Walsall, UK

It is the mainstream media, economists, and religious leaders -not

environmentalists who need to get this message out. If environmentalists and

scientists were in charge or had any power of influence the world would be a

lot different than it is right now. When no one listens to you for years and

years and years -you get tired of talking.

Beverly, Los Angeles, CA

Oh good grief, is it that time in the Great Debate Cycle already? 'Empowering'

women (weird expression, that) is the right thing to do, whatever the result on

population growth, and it is not the fear of the Great Population Control Taboo

that impedes this policy, nor should the wish to control population growth

reverse that. It is largely the intrusion of religion into politics... and I

can't quite see why fighting religious dogma with environmental dogma would

improve the situation at all. As for the rest, 1798 A.D. is on the phone for

you. The ghost of Thomas Malthus would like a word. Something about picking the

most controversial possible means of promoting otherwise unexceptional

policies?

unnecessary repetition,

I do agree. The trouble is you are talking about censoring something that

humans' consider both an essential right and a necessity: that is to procreate.

The only answer is to change the way society views having children. We are

going to have to beginning to teach our children that having kids is not a

necessity or a right, but that it is actually socially irresponsible. And to

teach girls and boys to go against their biological programming is a lesson

that will be very hard to teach.

Roark, New York (UK born)

I am very pleased to see an article that seeks to address a problem that has

been overlooked for far too long. Overpopulation is clearly a massive problem

for humanity, although I do not want government controls on population I think

that it is very important, particuarly in the developing world where resources

are scarce, to educate people on the benefits of family planning and not having

more children then a family can support. Well done, although we must still

focus on pollution and other environmental concerns it is imperative that we

seek to halt overpopulation as well.

WIll McLeod, Washginton D.C.

Hi. I agree, the population growth is a taboo and it must be changed NOW! If

I'm wright, human population has doubled in a hundred years. So it's like

+300000000 people!!! In such a rate (which in my mind WILL rise) in the next

100 years there WOULD be over 12 billion people! Now if there is some one who

can tell me HOW can we, humans, make room and provide food for such a number of

people extra, when we can't even do it for current numbers? How many 100 of

millions of people are living in slums all over the world as a result from this

inability? And the numbers are sky-rocketing, every year millions are joining

them! Me myself have made up my mind to tackle this problem by talking to my

friends then they address the family aspects, its future or just thinking about

having a "big" family for them selfs. The problem in my mind is, like I

mentioned before, numbers, but were are they and what is causing them? I think

its in the poor regions of the world where family's are "forced" being big, for

it's the only way they can survive, all working to make some money and to get

some food for living. In such situations family's of 6-8, counting parents and

there children, are quite common in Africa, Asia, Philippines, South America

and Central America including southern USA. To reduce this problem is

necessary, like in this article, to improve living situations so that two or

even ONE working parent could support a family of two or three (1-2 children).

Vytautas Rindzevicius, Uppsala, Sweden

This is an excellent clear exposition of the problem, with which I thoroughly

agree. People concerned about population growth are very familiar with the fact

of the press and some green organisations, Greenpeace for example, refusing to

recognise the problem, and it is absolutely essential to get through to people

at large.

Roger Plenty, Stroud, UK

Yes, he is right. It is ridiculous the way environmentalists refuse to talk

about this topic, the most important of all. What's more we should stop seeing

population stabilisation/reduction as a necessary evil. To achieve it would be

wonderful and only then will we be truly able to tackle the shameful levels of

poverty in the world.

Christopher Padley, Market Rasen, UK

Over population mitigation is a must and I fully support education, birth

control, women's rights, health care, poverty reduction, and yes even abortion

of unwanted pregnancies. For those freaking out by my last option, statistics

show that increasing the first mitigates the last option. Eather we reduce

population in a controled fashion or nature will do it in her own way. "Nature

bats last."

Leif Knutsen, Port Townsend, Washington

One major impediment to bringing out this issue is the general perception,

fostered by the mainstream media, that the Catholic Church is implacably

opposed to any efforts to address unchecked population growth. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Read paragraphs 2368-2371 in the "Catechism of the

Catholic Church," and you'll get the true picture. A key quote: "A particular

aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just

reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their

duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is

in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood."

Mark Hartman, San Diego, California, USA

Without the slightest doubt overpopulation is the one problem that has to be

resolved. Birth control must be spread to all peoples and if that upsets some

who would use overpopulation to gain adherents, then so be it

John R Harwood, Brantford Ontario Canada

You talk about previous population control abuses and then show a picture of

appearantly hungry brown people. Are you concerned about hunger and poverty, or

the environment? You talk of learning from past abuses but why not show

pictures of wealthy westerners tossing last years cell phone in a landfill or

driving around, by themselves, in their brand new Hummer. Everyone knows that

the west produces the bulk of the toxins and waste that is destroying the

environment. Kiss my ass white folks. Do you think the non-white world will

exterminate itself in order to save the planet for you? Not bloody likely. You

go down with the rest of us.

false1, USA

Mr. Feeney has hit the nail on the head. Reducing consumption is at best a

temporary solution, if we don't address the issue of population growth no

amount of conservation will save humanity. If we don't control our numbers

nature will; without politics and without pity. The only other way out is to

find new planets to inhabit and we will use this one up long before we have the

technology to colonize other worlds.

Scott W, Port Orchard, USA

Of course John Feeney is right. For too long we have allowed religious leaders

to dictate the rules on population growth. Only countries relatively free of

organised religion (such as China) have implemented any serious policies to

limit population. I also agree with Feeney that education is a big part of the

key to actually achieving population control in a humane way. And it must be

secular education! Religious education should not be allowed to substitute for

secular education, (although it might perhaps be permitted on evenings and

weekends!)

Martin Ellis, London, England

I absolutely agree with this article. In fact I was wondering why this topic is

not discussed in the international platform. Many countries cannot dare to talk

about this because of their domestic politics. But if UN comes with some

guidelines most of the countries would agree with it, and would be able to

convince their citizens that it is binding and cannot be ignored. UN can say

like every country has to have at least X units of habitat land and Y units of

forest land per citizen. If not, then a road map to achieve this in some years.

Karan Singh Raghuwanshi, Delhi, India

Far from being absent from the debate, I've been hearing about population as a

problem at least since I developed a sense of the existence of environmentalism

35 years or so ago. The problem is not that no-one will discuss it but that it

is too often raised by anthropogenic warming deniers as an accusation of

selective focus. The form of it always goes, "Why is the environmental movement

conspiring to limit our freedoms and ignoring the bigger issue of population."

Well, we're not, and the change of subject isn't working. The two are

interconnected - but we know that the demographic transition will eventually

turn the population juggernaut around. We don't know that the number of people

living at European standards of consumption is not going to double and double

again. If we end up with only 2 billion people, all consuming as much as the

average American or European today, having controlled the population will be

rather moot. 2 or 3 billion more all living at subsistence le!

vels off local resources won't have anything like the same impact as just 2 or

3 billion flying and driving.

Elliott Bignell, Sargans, Switzerland

Traffic. Lines. Anyone ever been to the DMV? Of course he is right. People will

die if this problem is not addressed. It has the ability to wipe out our entire

race. Every one knows what is going on, it is just a matter of when someone

does something about it.

Andrew W., Philadelphia, USA

I agree wholeheartedly with John Feeney, and I am surprised that this topic

hasn't come up with all the recent discussions revolving around environmental

issues. Hopefully with Obama's recent repeal of Bush's global gag rule, women

across the world can become more educated about their options regarding family

planning. If some sort of plan isn't implemented in the near future, I believe

that we are headed straight for a major crisis. There won't be enough land

available to grow food to sustain the ballooning human population - and it

doesn't help that we haven't sustainably farmed the land we DO have (ahem:

corn). Fresh water will become a commodity even more than it already is. This

is exactly what I thought of when reading the recent story of a woman in the US

giving birth to octuplets - when she already has six children.

Noelle, Minneapolis, MN USA

Hoorah at last. I have been talking about this for years. The human species is

too successful for its own good. We cannot go on expanding as we are. The world

needs balance and the human species has thrown the world out of balance. The

Chinese understand the concept, but implementation was screwed up. The native

American Indians understood the balance with nature as do most of the remaining

native tribes in places like South America. Its a knotty subject , but one that

needs discussion and resolution .

John OB, Basinstoke UK

Why does the UK 'Green' movement not acknowledge the environmentally

destructive impact of (mainly immigration-fuelled) population growth on THIS

country, where the Government is demanding the building of 3 million new homes

- at least a third on greenfield sites - to accommodate a projected population

of over 70 million by 2030? The only Green group to have had the courage to

campaign on this issue has been the Optimum Population Trust, which has pointed

out that due to recent high immigration England is already the most densely

populated country in Europe (having last year overtaken the Netherlands),

despite having the environmental capacity for a population of only 27 million.

P. Carter, Worthing, England

I absolutely agree. The churches, for self interest reasons, have promoted

overpopulation, and politically stifled anyone that disagrees with them. In my

country the christian Hispanic community has the highest birthrate of all

socioethnic groups. This goes back to the Spanish conquerers, who spread

christianity throughout South and Central America.

Al, Madison, WI USA

We can't talk about population control in America because our pseudo-Christian

religious imams are still trying to increase the number of people under their

control, by making birth control illegal, or at least difficult to get. Life is

sacred, they say, a gift from their anthropomorphized god idol-of-choice, so we

can't stop having children. To paraphrase our last President, "Heck, mebbe

we'uns kin git thet thar Armageddon and End of Days thing going again, so us

good Christian guys kin git beamed up & leave all the pagan riff-raff

behind..."

Chuck Bucks, Maryland, USA

Thank you! These thoughts have been in my head constantly since I was a kid and

it's IS AMAZING that there is so little discussion of it. We talk of population

growth among game animals, and prey animals - but somehow when it comes to

humans, we get a pass? I don't think so. The laws of nature apply to all, and

that which we don't have the discipline to do, Nature will eventually do for

us... as said in the article, most likely in a cataclysmic way.

mark, Los Angeles

Climate control, waste management, water management... all is a result of what

humans have been doing to the Earth. We are the cause of it - and too many of

us means there's too many problems. I completely agree with Dr. Feeney. We're

willing to control animal and pet populations, but not our own race. Consider

how many cities, environments and food supplies are being constrained... we

NEED to keep this conversation going.

James B, Dublin

Save the planet! Cull humans!

mike smith, Manchester

Absolutely. There are plenty of humans. We don't need to all be here at once,

God has all time to get everyone here.

maggie, olympia, usa

I completely agree with John Feeney and I would add its not just a taboo among

environmentalists, it a general widespread taboo. People do not like to talk

about this. Of course with environmentalists its particularly strange when you

think how hard they work to save the planet and at the same time ignore one of

the primary causes. Al Gore had to number of graphs in his film: two that

struck me as interesting were the famous "hockey stick" and the rate of

population growth. They had a very similar appearance and yet he said nothing

about population growth in that it might be a problem......

Jan van der Hoeven, Heemstede, NL

I'm not sure I would call it taboo, but it does seem markedly absent from the

conversation, and this essay is the first one I've seen that wholly considers

both the problem of population, and the lack of it as a factor when dealing

with environmental issues. Perhaps some expect it to be a given, or others

trully avoid it for reasons stated by Mr Feeney. Regarding sustainability:

addressing the issue of population versus the management of resource

consumption seems to me to be two sides of the same coin. Neither can be

achieved without an informed population that has adopted a 'conventional

wisdom' of self restraint and conservation. uch 'conventional wisdom' will not

manifest from the ether. At best it will be studied, developed, and

disseminated to humanity, or it will be forced on an ill-prepared population by

natural events.

michael logan, Rochester, NY, U.S.

I agree with this. The population of earth has increased and increased and

increased, there is simply no way that we won't run out of space! Humans are

living longer than ever and no amount of well-planned architecture is going to

fix that. It may go against many beliefs but perhaps a cap on the number of

children allowed is the right way foreward.

Charlotte Robertson, Newcastle Upon Tyne

I believe overpopulation is a problem. I also believe childbirth increases in

less developed cities, nations, and populations. We must begin to teach people

that by having only enough children as you can support is what is best for the

child AND the family. Having an abundance of children without the space or

money to raise them with basic essentials should be illegal. It is inhumane to

cause a child, without choice, to look for food or get a job rather than go to

pursue an education and better themselves and follow a dream. How is it that

population control is taboo but civil war and mass genocide is somehow

acceptable? Are we to assume that by educating and informing women of their

choices we are somehow disrupting societal roles? No. It is beyond time to

accept that women can successfully raise children and be good citizens by being

less persuaded that "children" equate to an innate human right. Having any more

children than you are capable of supporting is, in my opinion, inhumane and

inexhaustibly selfish. What needs to be taught is that by having so many

children, you are merely shortening their lives ... responsible for their

inevitable death because feeding a beast is not going to tame it.

Dawn , Rancho Santa Margarita, CA USA

Resource consumption is through the roof and we all know it. Scaling that down

is a great step, but what good is that if the overall population continues to

expand at a rapid rate? The answer is that it is not going to do any good at

all. We can observe in the natural environment what happens to a population

that exceeds its carrying capacity. The population crashes and a high death

toll results. Mother nature goes about population control ruthlessly, because

she has to. Pests, diseases, and other ailments used to keeps the human

population in check. Now, with our advanced medical technology, we live longer.

Maybe on paper, as statistics, we will be able to go on and continue breeding

like there is no tommorow, but the reality is that if we do not begin drastic

population control now, too many are going to die as a result. The topic of our

population size, sadly, is a taboo. Maybe all we need is that dedicated group

of researchers, scientist, and environmentalists to continue knocking on our

door until we open it. All that remains to be asked is: "Do we save 1000 people

now and see 1 million die as a result, or do we wake up and do something before

that can happen?"

John, Regina, Canada

The ability to freely debate any subject should be welcomed, and this includes

population growth and control. I do not however believe the view taken by Dr

John Feeney and others that we have already exceeded the Earth's carrying

capacity is true. Since before the 20th century people have been claiming that

we are reaching 'breaking point', estimates were made among others that the

world could not support 5 billion people; it now supports over 6 billion. To

ignore resource consumption as a possible answer seems like a fundamental flaw

in any argument. To take a simple example, energy efficient light bulbs

decrease power use for lighting by an order of magnitude, these kinds of

changes allow us to do much more with the same resources. It is in fact often

the same people who argue we are over populated who argue against many measures

to increase our ability to support more people such as GM crops and nuclear

energy, making their case if successful a self fulfilling prophecy. Finally

contrary to what is often heard, the world is capable of producing enough food

to feed its population. The sad truth of the matter is that we choose not to

for financial reasons. You only have to look at the EU and its CAP to see that

we are willing to waste food to maintain higher prices (prices that the

starving can't afford).

John Graham, Northampton, Northamptonshire

I think the only realistic way to do this would be to focus on decreasing the

amount of poverty in the world and increasing the wealth of the countries. Any

central government measures like in China one child per couple can only be done

in dictatorships. Many environmentalist will not support this course because

they normally the same people who support human rights and loads of other

issues like globalization, gm foods, intensive agriculture even through anyone

who actually research the causes of degrading of the environment knows that

these are the only tools apart reverting back to a stone civilization that we

have to stop to it. United Kingdom is one country where proof can be found that

increasing population does not come at the cost of degrading the environment in

fact it provides proof that increasing population can be married with

improvements in the environment. For instant the improvement in the in Thames ,

the successful reintroduction of several species, with numbers of many animals

on the up, air pollution has in many cases as remain the same or decrease over

the years. Management and monitoring of the environment, and developing

technologies to prevent acid rain and all pollutions is far more important than

focusing on pie the in sky schemes of controlling population numbers in a

democracy, maybe we should all return to a dictatorship it the only way you

will truly be able to control population numbers, I am sure the same people

protesting about the environment will not hold rallies across the country for a

democracy to reinstated. I will even volunteer to be the leader of

dictatorship,the skills I have, is that I will not even blink at the harsh

punishments that will be needed to be handed out to enforce the birth control

laws that will need to be enforce and measures that will need to be implemented

to control any uprising.

David Knowles, Loughton

I agree. If we reduce global warming effects and pollution by 30% per capita,

yet increase population by 40%, what is the change to pollution and global

warming?

Steve, San Diego, CA US

All the major problems of the world today, food shortages, oil demand,

pollution, global warming, habitat destruction. They all ultimately lead back

to the fact that there are too many of us. We need to heed these words and

consider our own family plans.

Ben Cowburn, Oxford

Even a modest 1% population growth results in a DOUBLING of population every 70

years. Exponential population growth + finite resources = Malthusian

catastrophe. I do wonder whether our political "leaders" are capable of

grasping this simple concept, let alone equipped to deal with it.

Leyton Williams-Davies, Wales, UK

John Feeney has it exactly right. The elephant in the room. Halve the

population over time, and we would halve our CO2 buildup and resource use.

Computers have removed the need for large populations and governments, but as

yet we have not made full use of them. With less population we would leave more

space for nature. I am fifty chose not to have children.

Christopher Sykes, Princes Risborough

I agree - humans have exceeded the earth's carrying capacity, and will reap the

results of it sooner than later if no action is taken. Here's the hard

question: what can we do about it? Can and will more countries institute

China's one-child policy (or will more people decide not to reproduce)? Or,

rather than slowing the rate of population growth, which only delays the

problem, who would you choose to kill so that the rest of the species can

benefit? I don't have any good answers to this.

Sylvia, Durango, USA

I agree our population needs to be greatly decreased if we plan on keeping our

way of life and staying on this planet. Considering the failures we've had with

this idea in the past, it's not surprising population control has become a

taboo issue. Additionally, all the anti-family planning notions in the US worry

me about the availability of birth control for those who want it and need it. I

would love to hear good ideas from people who study populations on how to curb

ours to more reasonable numbers. What is a reasonable size for us to be at?

Marianna Kleyman, West Lebanon, NH USA

Absolutely this is at the very heart of global stewardship. Some point to the

Bible's "go forth and multiply" as a basis for continuing unchecked population

growth. It seems abundantly clear that we've pretty much completed this task.

Now it would be a good idea figure out what the next Divinely directed task is.

I think even Pope Benedict has come forward to support an increased focus on

stewardship; sadly this did not include a mention of restricting population

growth.

William Brady, Arlington VA USA

The problem isn't with the few couples in which both want to have a large

number of children, it's with the way many women and girls are forced to have

more children than they want to have. That is both a human rights violation and

the bulk of unsustainable population growth! Access to birth control must be

improved. That includes access to abstinence - too many people today can't

abstain from sex when they want to because they are raped, and/or because being

housewives is the only way they know how to make a living (face it, even if a

virgin can get married, the idea of her staying a virgin and staying a wife at

the same time is almost always a joke). We need crackdowns on forced marriage

and other rapes, so that people who want to abstain from sex don't still get

forced to have sex. We need improved education so everyone can learn trades and

professions that don't require having sex, and therefore afford to abstain from

sex whenever they want to. We need crackdowns on workplace sexual harassment so

a worker can keep her (or his) job without risking the boss getting her

pregnant (or risking getting the boss pregnant).

John, NYC, USA

Maybe it is because the emphasis is always on "girls and women in developing

countries" The so call "developed" countries with "only the affluent have a

right to large families" attifude, also contribute and should set examples.

Jack Carroll, Tucson, AZ, USA

This is utter nonsense. Countries are offering money for couples to have babies

to boost their populations, countries don't have enough people to meet job

demands. Sterilisation programmes of family planning incentives do not work,

and only help to ruin societies. If opoulations must be controlled, perhaps we

could ask for volunteers, rather than impose scientific thought on all of us.

Ian, Scotland

You are wrong, Dr Feeney. There are two taboos. 1) Human population 2) Religion

Good luck with that pal.

James , Shillingford, UK

I do agree and applaud his efforts to take this taboo topic to the forefront of

the green movement. Women in poor areas simply have no choice when it comes to

reproduction and this needs to change. Education and contraceptives could help

them shape their families and better provide for the children they decide to

have.

Jennifer, St. Louis, MO

It has been a source of continued annoyance to me that the issue of human over

population has been so continuously ignored for many years. The issue was much

more debated in the 1960s than it is these days and back then the problem was

nothing like as severe. There are hardly any environmental problems that could

not be helped by a significant reduction in human numbers. Education needs to

be done now in order to head off the possibility of more draconian measures

being required in the future.

James, Leicester, UK

I have to agree, we need to bring our global population under control. We need

to not only work on population control by way of birth control in countries

with runaway population growth, such as India and China, but we also need to

work towards a safety valve - Lunar and Lagrange point colonies to give us a

place to move those willing and able to relocate off-world.

Jason, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

I agree completely. I strongly believe that overpopulation is the underlying

source of most (if not all) the environmental and social problems we are

facing. I think that reducing population growth, and even more: reducing

population, is the only way for the human civilisation to survive. I am

grateful to John Feeney for his contribution in making this debate public. We

need to redefine our ways of thinking. Our planet is finite, it simply can't

support an infinite growth of population.

Serge Pfister, Carrouge Switzerland

Let Catholic God bless gay people and have less of us!!!

Peter, Auckland; NZ

This article is flawed in it's presentation. It seeks to link population growth

and environmental degredation, even though population growth is being seen in

developing countries, and environmental degredation is primarily caused by

developed countries.

Kiran, Galway, Ireland

The public discussion of this topic is long overdue. It is a vital component on

fostering a healthy future for generations to come. Let the debates & education

of one another begin!

K. Kumu, Camas, WA

Among the many taboos, certainly the biggest 'Elephant' in the room. Take away

the massive levels of overpopulation and all the other problems - climate

change, resources, food shortages, space to 'breath' etc. they all just melt

away. Perhaps it is the only real problem, the rest are symptoms.

Simon Mallett, Lenham, Kent, UK

Thank GOD someone with some opinion-making ability is finally saying something

about this. Personally, I blame the modern western conception of an economic

model of perpetual growth for the perpetuation of this problem. On a planet

with finite space and finite mineral resources, infinite growth, of

populations, economies, anything, is impossible. There is no such thing as a

natural disaster, after all, unless you have people where nature happens. For

example, if New Orleans was not a major metropolitan area, Katrina would have

been a hurricane and a flood, not a social cataclysm. Furthermore, if Dow

Chemical hadn't had horrifically under-regulated plants up the Mississipi, the

storm surge would not have dragged a bazillion gallons of carcinogens back down

through the city and into the bay. Just a thought.

Aaron Mercier, Columbus, USA

This article is absurd. The mere presence of human beings does not necessitate

the consumption of the current age. A disporportionate amount of the harm being

done to the world per capita takes place in the west, a place free of crowding

and overpopulation. I'd be very hard-pressed to blame places like India for the

calamity facing the environment today, and the last thing we should do if we

have any hope for the future is discourage people from having children.

Tracy, Toronto, Canada

It takes a couple of generations for natural reductions can change population

levels. After all, it's only just now that the baby boom is beginning to show

its end. So unless we're going to kill people to remove them, a change in

population is more a long-term solution. Also, when most first-worlders talk

about population reduction, they think of the developing world. Well, 10-20

Africans produce the same as one USian, so the best "bang for the buck" is to

reduce USian populations. In the UK, the south east cannot support the people

there and the UK as a whole is having to deplete resources faster than they can

be renewed. So the SE UK needs a culling too. E.g. anyone living within 100

miles of London cannot have more than two children. If they already have two

children, they cannot buy a house (not even buy-to-let). And the UK uses about

the same as 5-10 Africans, making the removal of surplus population in the UK

still much more effective. Strange how it's always someone else who needs to

change, though, isn't it...

Mark, Exeter, UK

Well said John. I have been bemoaning the lack of attention on population

growth and it's impact on standards of living and the environment for the past

2 decades. It infuriates me that politicians are too PC to raise the issue.

Something needs to be done urgently before millions starve.

Peter S, Sandy GB

Population growth is taboo among all of us, not just the environmental groups.

The growth here in the UK over the past 50 years has been frightening: from a

mere 30 million in 1950s to around 65 million now. It is obvious that more

people require more resources, produce more waste, create more pollution, and

yet the real problem that we face - the human population - is steadfastly

ignored by most. Improvements in efficiency will prove to yield major benefits

to the way we currently live, but the only long term solution to our collective

impact on the environment and for our continued survival is to limit population

growth, and to allow a natural decline in the population.

David, Cheshire

Oh yes... It's difficult to know exactly when the carrying capacity is/has been

exceeded, but there can surely be no doubt that reducing population would be

good news. More good farming/building land to go round, more marginal land

going back to bio-diverse wilderness, a reduction in CO2, simply more space for

every human and every other species.

Rowan Green, London, UK

A weekly series of thought-provoking opinion pieces on environmental topics