Candide, No one wants to talk about population control because its too difficult. Most developed Western countries have naturally declining populations that are only propped up by active immigration. Net immigration is coming from developing countries with high population growth levels. In our politically correct environment you can not say control population growth in developing countries-this is seen as post colonialist. The elephant in the room is that if we don't seriously control population growth NOW along with getting low carbon solutions happening NOW the future is one of utter despair. Think Mad Max with a few fortress colonies with what is left of humanity hammering on the door. How long will Indonesia sit with its millions starving while big inviting empty food producing Australia is just a days sailing away??

*No one wants to talk about population control because its too difficult.*

Well, lets say its too politically difficult. The Vatican is still
out there promoting larger families, no condoms, no pill and no
abortions. Perhaps they should feed the starving masses with their
wealth.

Now lets say that the Australian Govt started encouraging more
third world countries to give their women the right to choose, when
it comes to family planning and provided aid. Frankly I would be
very suprised if Archbishop Pell were not on the doorstep of any
Catholic politicians immediately!

The Vatican is amazingly good at lobbying and more little Catholics
is what they want, if they are to outbreed the Muslims.

While we have basically told them to get lost in the first world,
when it comes to our own family planning, in the third world they
still have a large influence.

The point is, difficult or not, unless we finally address this
problem and give all the world's women a choice in these matters,
we are basically peeing in the breeze, when it comes to food
production, C02, the environment or anything else.

The author & most of the posters above take the Neo-Malthusian stance. Which has proven to be categorically wrong – in fact the opposite has been the reality - ever since Malthus mentioned it over 100 years ago.

According to demographic forecasters, the world’s population will rise to a around 10bn & therefafter remain static. This is not the concerning part. After all we went from 1bn to 6bn in 100 years & food has never been more abundant & cheap. What is concerning is that the forthcoming rise in population is expected to come mainly from Africa.

I believe the world can handle a whole lot more people than it has, per se. Starvation is totally unnecessary & is not a production problem at all but a market & distribution problem, caused primarily by the policies of 3rd world leaders (although western protectionism certainly isn’t helping). Food is getting cheaper & cheaper in real terms. Ironically that’s been cited as a factor inhibiting 3rd world development, not helping it – as their terms of trade falls. And if food prices rise, the developing world will benefit as they are producing & selling higher-value added products.

I don’t see the doomsday scenario that most others here see. If there is a doomsday, then the fault will most likely lie fairly & squarely at the feet of African leaders concerned & their policies, as has been so often the case in the past.

Geoff Ward:

“Governments of the developed world, that’s you and me, are fully liable for this immoral situation we find ourselves confronting.”

No we aren’t. But if you want to take responsibility (for something that hasn’t happened), be my guest.

KGB. You are right in the sense that the apportionment of the world's available food is a distribution and marketing problem. Until now, distribution has become easier, but as the worlds liquid fuel supplies dwindles, the distribution problem will become more difficult.

I wouldn't write Thomas Malthus off either. I wonder who is the guru who thinks that the world population is going to stabilise at 10 Bn. Does he think that the Vatican is going to have a change of heart? Are the Muslims going to eschew word domination? Is the ever increasing discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere going to cause mankind to become impotent? I suspect that the main driver of population limitation will be starvation and Malthus will be proved right after all, but it won't be at 10 Bn, more like something considerably higher.

"Eat, drink, and be merry"

David

KGB, I’m not aware that Malthus put a date on things, but I’ve never followed
his writings. IIRC is was Darwin who pointed out that far more potential beings
of any species will be born then can ever survive, resources being the limiting factor.
Eventually the crunch comes and usually with a quick thud.

Yup, population has grown 6 fold and food is cheaper then ever, all based on 100
years of cheap and plentiful oil. It was only in 1999 that oil was still around 10$ a
barrel, now its 110$. Its not just oil that is coming under pressure to keep up with
demand, but a number of commodities. Not just from more people, but more people
wanting a higher standard of living.

You believe that the world can handle a whole lot more people, but the question is,
can it do so sustainably? Given that 6.5 billion are not living sustainably, I doubt
it. At the end of the day, if its not sustainable, then the wheels will fall off the
proverbial cart eventually.

Another 4 billion makes sustainability even less likely.

Watch food prices rise as energy prices rise, the two are closely linked. Without
cheap oil, we face a changing world.

From some of the comments I can almost believe that the mandating of food to fuel is in fact policy across Governments to bring on the misery and starvation needed to limit world population.
A short sharp hit for perhaps 10 years until second generation biofuels can seriously provide an alternative to liquid fossil fuels may just do the trick.
Perhaps we can drop a billion or so.

However the advantage is illusory. This billion uses but fraction of the world’s resources and contributes stuff all CO2 compared to us in the developed world.

I think the advocates of population control should consider the standard of living in our developed world as your greatest culprit. For example, grain fed beef is a colossal waste of grain, energy and source of greenhouse gases. ‘Kill a billion or eat grass fed beef’ could be the topic for another article.

My article was fairly specific. My suggestion was that converting food to fuel; first generation biofuel holds little benefit other than for investors and rural landlords while having the potential to cause misery and starvation to many.

I do not agree with ‘untutored mind’ that profitable business has no responsibilities other than to shareholders. I am saying that it is up to Governments to help them live up to these responsibilities and ‘KGB’ it is up to us to help Governments help businesses to be socially responsible.
Yabby, the world does not need to starve its poor. With new energy sources our resoures are plentiful. Have faith in our bright young scientists. What we really need is some bright young enlightened politicians and this is where we come in as these politician are extensions of us