*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??