Is the real problem food crisis or families of 8 and more? Leslie

"...solutions are within reach."

If you do not address the issue of population growth the solution will always be moving further out of reach at an accelerating rate.

It's like putting a bandaid on a skin cancer - it may cover up the problem for a little while but ignoring it just ensures a fatal outcome.

Difficult to argue as the comments have done that it is simply population size that is the problem, given we produce enough food to feed the world's people now and there are hundreds of millions of obese people in the developed world. It is how the food is distributed more than the size of the demand.

With all due respects J.A.M., the argument about how food is distributed is becoming a bit tired and even facile. People in a region can grow beyond their capacity to feed themselves if they have something to trade for food. Unless vast mineral wealth is found in the Sahel, then the people don't have much to trade, if anything. And Niger has the highest birth-rate in the world - the other Sahelian nations are close behind. It is totally unsustainable. I'm glad the author does mention population growth as aggravating the situation but it is much more profound than that. The Red Cross and other agencies are going to have to make food aid conditional on their agreeing to hold family sizes down - with help of course. What is happening in the Sahel is a mere preview of what will happen in the rest of the world unless there is a concerted campaign to get all communities living within their resource capacity.

Are we running out of food? This is an anti-population favourite.

According to the National Farmers Federation, there are approximately 134,000 farm businesses in Australia, 99 per cent of which are family owned and operated. Each Australian farmer produces enough food to feed 600 people, 150 at home and 450 overseas. Australian farmers produce almost 93 percent of Australia’s daily domestic food supply.

Australia’s farm exports earned the country $32.5 billion in 2010-11, up from $32.1 billion in 2008-09, while the wider agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors earn the country another $36.2 billion in exports. About 70 per cent of arable land is currently under crops. Of that 70 per cent, farmers keep about 10 per cent fallow for rotation.

Australian live cattle exports totaled 694,429 head in 2011 (down 21 per cent on 2010 due to Indonesia cattle ban), valued at A$629.4 million, according to ABARE (2012). According to Australian livestock export industry statistics review (2011) the nation exported 2,458,448 sheep in 2011, valued at A$328 million.

We import about a little under $10 billion in foodstuffs per year – mainly packaged goods - and about one third is due to reciprocal trade agreements with New Zealand and other nations.

The anti-people faction say that we are running out of food or that we will run out of food. This is blatantly false. If in a moment of madness we decided to drive our exports on to the domestic market, every man, woman and child would be required to eat about $500,000 of meat, grain and vegetables per year, every year. Bon apetite.

With all due respect to popnperish, all He/She seems to be saying that population control, is simply not assisting with food aid? Which in turn will lead to a seriously downsized populations in areas too arid to sustain anything more that a nomadic follow the rain existence?
The northern mountainous region of Ethiopia was once covered in verdant forest.
The people there lived as they have for millennia, mostly from small rural vegetable gardens. It was man-made climate change that brought in unseasonable drought, which in turn compelled the starving to forage for food and firewood.
The end result, starving masses and a lunar landscape, where once there was forest.
Starvation induces infertility and ends the monthly cycle.
Babies suckling on bone dry breasts die within days.
So all we need do is turn our backs and over population will solve itself?
Somewhere it is writ large, that for evil to prosper, good men only need stand and do nothing.
We need to assist people to re-vegetate their former forests.
We also need to assist them to conserve the water, with sustainable highland dam projects that force as much of the rainfall into the landscape, as it will hold. Which in turn will slowly release water, keeping the waterways flowing and environmentally healthy, until the then more reliable rains return.
This will also double or treble soil fertility and food production.
Give a man a fish and ,you feed him for a day, give him a boat/plough and teach him how to fish/farm sustainably; and you feed him and his family for life.
If we truly want to exert population controls in the third or impoverished world, then we need to ensure that the female demographic are reasonably well educated.
This is almost exclusively the only approach that has been shown to work; given educated women understand they have a right to say no!
And indeed, with their own careers prospects and or dream realisation to serve, have a lot less time or inclination for baby making! Rhrosty.

As I have previously posted, the abiity to, and the universal right to, access birth control has been with us on this planet for quite some time.

When a population is clearly unsustainable, remember the law of 70! Perhaps mandatory family planning could become government policy?

We continue to look for intelligent life off this planet, just a pity that we fail to recognise the lack of intelligent life here on planet "overpopulated already".

Popnperish - I'm sorry if the fact that the world is simply not running out of food seems facile to you, although I'm not entirely sure why. Is it simply inconvenient?

I'm intrigued by the notion of making food aid conditional on recipients agreeing to hold family sizes down. How would you propose that happen: Here's a food parcel but before I can give it to you can you please just step into this tent where we can perform a quick sterilisation procedure?

Humanitarian aid occurs on the well established principle of responding to need. Thankfully these organisations do not try to force political and social change down the throats of the people they are helping. Rather they just save lives. I for one think this is admirable.

Ah, the “EeK,- oh, Fascist!” shriek of Cheryl/Malcom King is never far away in response to any suggestion regarding women’s emancipation from the slavery of unwanted births and consequent misery.
With appropriate respect to Rhrosty, what he/she seems to be leaping to is very similar to that of Cheryl: judgment by false and misleading evidence. With application of even a smidgin of impartial inquiry (a proper scientific approach), the Popandperish standpoint is shown to be in keeping with what was attempted to be accomplished at the 1994 Conference in Cairo: the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development. Womens’ emancipation was at the core of its concerns on population and development.
That conference and its findings were effectively sabotaged by the likes of Cheryl/Malcolm King; and as a result the ambulances of Red Cross, Medicines without Borders, and like-minded caring organizations are still assembled at the bottom of the cliff rather than building fences at its top to minimize injury in the first place.

Thanks colinsett. The "mission" for charities should be: "Don't assemble at the bottom of the cliff with band aids, build fences at its top to minimize injury in the first place".Leslie

What Colsett and the whacko UnSustainable UnPeople faction all agree on is that that (a) migrants are invariably eaters of food and therefore unwelcome (b) foreign aid should be used as a weapon to impose our will on others and (c) the end of the earth is upon us all if we don't pay attention to their silly ramblings.

The good thing about the article is that it focused on the one area in the world where population growth is rising - Africa. But the No People lobby don't mention Africa. They are bearded gnomes whose purient interest is focused on what we do in our bedrooms - mainly in Adelaide. Which is about right.

J.A.M.
I said the "all we need to do is redistribute the food" is becoming a facile argument, not as you suggest I claim " that the world is not running out of food" is a facile argument. Farmers need to be paid if only to plant the next crop. They can't simply give it away - it has to be bought. The UN can deal (just) with temporary food crises but they can't deal with the long-term problem of too many people in one region not being able to produce their own food and with no other goods or services to pay for it.
As colinsett implied, those who insist there is no population problem are standing in the way of women getting equal rights and having control over their own bodies and thus limiting the size of their families. Let's put it another way: those who do not actively seek to ensure universal access to reproductive rights are being coercive, because for a woman to have an unwanted baby is a form of coercion.

*It is widely recognised prevention is better than cure and that investments in risk reduction generate one of the highest rates of return in the development sector.*

The author is quite correct on that point. So when is the Red Cross
going to get serious about providing family planning to the hundreds
of millions of women which the Guttmacher Institute has identified
as having an unmet need for family planning?

These women are simply too poor to afford it and whilst they keep
popping out about 7 kids each, they will simply breed more women
popping out 7 kids each, creating an ever larger problem.

Cheryl, you have brought to an abrupt end a productive rational debate.Sadly, this seems to happen in all open forums.Leslie

Cheryl,

Since you are so consistently pro-population growth, I am led to suspect that you work for an immigration, refugee advocacy or anti-discrimination organisation. Not that such occupation would be a bad thing, quite the contrary, but might you be pro Aus population growth, as distinct from global growth?

Perhaps you question the validity of the author's opening statement (and if so, on what grounds precisely?):

>>Despite progress toward food and nutrition security over the past 20 years, one billion people still do not have enough to eat.<<

Alternatively, what is to be gained by an increase in world population? Are we not already seeing sufficient virtually irreversible ecological destruction over a very significant area of our finite globe? No sentiment then, for wild forests and their inhabitants, or for study of their mysteries and potentials? No thought for those few remaining 'wild tribes' totally reliant on their native forests for their continuing survival and the survival of their culture and traditions? "Modern Mankind" the Alpha and Omega, and all else 'dispensable'?

Current reality speaks volumes against your pro-pop mantra, Cheryl. Can't see the wood for the trees?

Even given that current world food production might be sufficient to comfortably feed all 8 billion (and that is not actually a given, is it?), what of the millions or billions more to be added in the future unless some responsible, sustainable, measures are adopted now? (Have you noted how much modern agriculture relies on finite and dwindling fertiliser resources, for example?)

Rhrosty, recovery of destroyed landscapes, though a worthy objective, is a lot more difficult than you may imagine. "Resilience" and "Entropy".

Hi Saltpetre,

I am not pro-population growth, I simply represent a more moderate point of view. The population argument in Australia is a ridiculous furphy generated when Treasury increased its projections by 4 million over 50 years about six years ago.

Then there was a lot of finger pointing as a kind of mad argument erupted about Big Australia versus small Australia.

None of these positions make sense. We will have a population in Australia of about 34 million people by 2050 although it might fall to 32 million. None of this matters. In Australia we have a surplus of food and energy.

Indeed domestic power consuption has flattened off. One can't say that it's too many people using power (consumption would go up). The reason? The rise of alternative power sources (solar in the main) and high prices. Population growth in Australia is falling.

As the writer of the article rightly pointed out, there are food problems in Africa and one of the factors is over population. We must also include purchasing power, distance to market, net food grown locally, price costs to transport the food, corruption and good old fashioned greed. Don't forget greed.

in Adelaide
Cheryl,
Adelaide, as in SA ? I could have sworn you were from another planet.

< Humanitarian organisations like Red Cross are currently working in the Sahel region to provide emergency food supplies and health care. Most importantly we are also working to strengthen communities’ capacity to respond to future threats by improving irrigation and farming techniques, building seed banks, establishing communal gardens and educating people on health, sanitation and hygiene practices. >

What about the birthrate; family planning; population stabilisation?

I don’t get it. The Red Cross is dealing with causal factors and not just providing food for those dire need, but it is apparently not dealing with the issue in a holistic manner, if it is neglecting the population factor.

< …trends such as population growth, increasing urbanisation, environmental degradation and climate change are bound to aggravate the consequences of external shocks on vulnerable communities >

So Donna, why is the population factor being left out of aid programs??

Cheryl,

I reject the idea that it is inevitable or essential that Aus grow to over 30 million for its own benefit or survival. There can really only be one obvious reason for accelerated long-term Aus population growth, and that is national security - as world overpopulation and concomitant increasing scarcity of essential resources approach breaking point, and nations increasingly covet resources and opportunities beyond their national boundaries. But, security lies in diplomacy and high-tech defence, and not in huge armies.

Admittedly we have a current shortage of skilled labour in the mining sector (and apparently in the health sector), and this may only be assuaged by overseas recruitment - and our welfare system has generated a growing class of Aussies unwilling to take ordinary or menial jobs, also creating a demand for imported labour. However, the mining boom is finite, and those menial or messy job vacancies will continue to be limited - unless we start chasing our tails, and if only some of those debutantes would get off their backsides.

As industrial technology moves increasingly towards mechanisation and robotics there will be increasing emphasis in two essential classes - professional/engineering/technical/research/development and skilled/semi-skilled - with a diminishing ratio of menial, plus the inevitable unwilling.

Working smarter, rather than harder, is the order of the day, and of the 21st Century, and that has to include moving progressively towards productive full employment. The best future for Aus will be to achieve the elevation of all - to eliminate any underclass or disadvantaged, and afford dignity. Such an objective should concurrently be applied to all of humanity's disadvantaged, and this can only be possible with a finite ceiling to population over the whole of the planet.

No envisaged technical advance can afford genuine quality of life to all current billions, let alone cater for any increase. Aus can certainly accommodate more than our 23.5 million, but the world desperately needs reform and reigning-in.

Part of the food debate is energy. Crops grown for fuel are a very large part of the food security/shortage problem. Moreover, fuel produced from former food crops, produces a net energy loss that must be made good from other sources, like the grid.
I see that as simply dumb and prefer very low water use, algae production, which needs neither arable land or energy inputs, to produce endlessly sustainable comparatively inexpensive alternative fuel.
After that, reticulated energy needs to be a carbon free peak demand alternative.
My preference is thorium, which is four times more abundant than uranium. It is quite often accompanied by rare earths, which make mining it doubly profitable.
Unlike uranium oxide, thorium leaves the ground as virtually pure material needing very little separation/preparation to make it suitable as a power source.
Liquefied in fluorine, lithium and beryllium salts, it is mostly consumed in the reaction process, with the heat transferred to the steam turbines, by helium.
It is old 50's technology, abandoned because there was no weapons spin-off.
20/20 hindsight would infer we should have adopted it, if only to prevent the disastrous melt downs, and or waste disposal issues, associated with oxide reactors?
The very small amount of waste produced in the thorium reaction, is far less toxic and eminently suitable for very long life space batteries.
All these factors combined, possibly make Thorium reaction the cheapest most affordable, currently available, peak demand, carbon free energy in the world?
Which likely explains why India, which a still has a very large, very poor demographic, have adopted it; or, why the "greens", relentlessly bag it?
Simply because it incorporates the term nuclear? Or, might enable us to re-industrialise, with energy dependant high tech manufacture? Rhrosty.

Cheryl,

"We will have a population in Australia of about 34 million people by 2050 although it might fall to 32 million. None of this matters. In Australia we have a surplus of food and energy."

Well of course that sounds fantastic. Never mind that most of the 32 or 34 million people in Australia will probably consume meat, whether beef, lamb, pork, chicken or any other industrial meat food.

Think for a minute, beef in this country consumes at the very least, 5-7 kilograms of grain and approximately 15 litres of water to produce, of which we export (nett loss of water and grain) to other modern, affluent countries. The same can be said of all other meat products coming from this grain production declining nation and a country that is rapidly depleting or polluting its natural, potable water supply.

Population, no matter how you argue the fact, is the major reason our poor planet is in over-shoot, oh dear, gosh, I have now put myself into that doom and gloom myopic camp that just does not see a way forward.

Unfortunately Cheryl you have the 'rose coloured' glasses on. Population and our industrial agriculture is one of the primary reasons we are headed toward a food famine globally. Australia may produce some great food, export our current excess, but consider the energy required, the pollution produced, the loss of our critically short supply of good top-soil, introduction of bio-accumulating genetic modification of plants, trees, shrubs, animals etc as we feed them increasing amounts of anti-biotics, steroids, and god knows what else to keep industrial agriculture growing!

You can keep your 32 or 34 million people future, I prefer mine with sustainable, permaculture type organic food, grown in balance with nature and one that treats the earth with respect.

Not that you would care, based on your continuing stance on a perpetual growing population.

I meant to say "Think for a minute, for every kilogram of beef produced in this country, the cow consumes at the very least, 5-7 kilograms of grain and approximately 15 litres of water to produce that kilo of "beef", of which we export (nett loss of water and grain) to other modern, affluent countries. The same can be said of all other meat products coming from this grain production declining nation and a country that is rapidly depleting or polluting its natural, potable water supply.

Geoff