Aargh, this is so terrible. I just throw my hands in the air with despair!

Shenggen Fan, please, do not just accept that;

<< The world's population is expected to surpass 9 billion people by 2050.. >>

Let’s strive to make that level a whole lot lower by 2050.

Come on, all your efforts are aimed at one side of the equation – increasing the supply of food, and completely ignoring the ever-increasing demand for food, or just blithely taking it for granted.

This is crackers!!

We have GOT to address both sides of the equation… and put at least as much effort into halting population growth as we put into increasing food supplies.

Crikey I get sick of saying this, in response to so many OLO articles.

True, Ludwig.

>>Let’s strive to make that level a whole lot lower by 2050... Crikey I get sick of saying this, in response to so many OLO articles.<<

You do indeed.

But you fall somewhat short on the "who", and a very long way indeed on the "how".

We have become accustomed to the sight of wringing your hands every time someone mentions the future without including a homily against people having children. But it does wear a little thin after a while.

On present trends, according to some pundits (and not others, of course; this is the future we're talking about after all) world population will peak in the middle of this century, and then begin a catastrophic decline, until we disappear completely under the weight of our own doom-mongering.

I made the last bit up, of course. But it is as likely as any other scenario, is it not.

Dear Pericles,

I think we have a choice. We can reduce our population to a reasonable size (A reasonable size is dependent on how we decide to live, the resources we have etc.) in a rational manner or we can let the old standbys of pestilence, conflict and famine reduce it. Somehow it will be reduced. However, any consideration of sustainability must consider population size for it to be a meaningful consideration.

It will not mean doom if our population is reduced to zero. I doubt that we will take all other life with us. Without us they will get along.

"It will not mean doom if our population is reduced to zero. I doubt that we will take all other life with us. Without us they will get along."

Well David.F, I suppose worse things could happen than the elimination of the human race by putting our future in the lands of the sterilisation lobby. Try getting a plumber on a Friday night. That's a tough one. Or remembering your frequent flyer pin number.

I'm all for sustainability. I use the word a lot when I don't know the facts that precede the term or the consequences of using the term. Soon it will be used as a catch all reply.

Q. Did you have a good night out?
A. It was barely sustainable.

I wrote;

<< Crikey I get sick of saying this, in response to so many OLO articles. >>

Pericles, you wrote;

<< You do indeed. But you fall somewhat short on the "who", and a very long way indeed on the "how". >>

Well, that’s not true at all. I have many times expressed the things that need to be done in order to address population growth and sustainability, and who should be doing them.

I have often thought that in most of your posts you are good at having a fine old critique but poor in offering alternatives.

As old CJ used to say; pot calling kettle black!?

Fact is; we just keep on seeing articles on OLO in which the authors demonstrate the most amazing blind spot towards population growth.

And in their efforts to address only one side of the demand / supply equation, they are actually facilitating population growth and hence arguably taking the planet further away from sustainability and towards a bigger crash event.

I point this out wherever I see it. And rightly so. But I’m not the only one on this forum who does it.

What is the evidence we have too may people on the planet? Simply asking because people are generally healthier and better fed then there were when had 1 billion.