An excellent analogy Ian. Indeed, population should be there as one of the big four issues to handle. Good to hear that Jeffrey Sachs had made an impassioned speech at Rio+20 about how it had been left out of the discussions there, that population needed to go beyond women's rights and that we needed to talk about population growth and numbers. There will be a big difference between having 8 rather than 10 billion people. We can't feed the latter sustainably - we might just be able to with 8 though even that will be difficult. And yes, we have to break down the silos between the issues because each one impacts on the other. Extracting fossil fuels, particularly unconventional oil, has enormous implications for climate, for instance.

just collect the food that is left on the tables of fast food restuarents and you have plenty to feed the poor. The world is not overpopulated just controlled by greedy people unwilling to share. Among them are corrupt African leaders such as in Zimbawe.

MOst people that carry on about the overpopulation of the planet are like Mr Rudd who claimed that climate change was the world's biggest moral challenge. A load of hot air that is usually an excuse not to look at the moral corruption in man's heart. Its been called Green relgion which really is putried.

Dear runner
You have to do better than that, sorry. The issue is serious and you have to deal with it. It comes down to a balance between resources and population. Yes, food waste is an issue but dealing with it won't necessarily put food in the mouths of those who need it. The sooner we stabilise population then go into decline the better for the planet and for our own ultimate welfare.

'Sustainability' is a myth based on the assumption that people will want to live the same way we do from now till the Sun explodes. Given the changes in human society documented over the last 5000 years or so, that's -- well, let's be kind and say 'unlikely'. I have no idea what my great-grandchildren will be doing in, say, 2112, but I'm pretty sure they won't be getting their fuel or their food or their metals from the same place I do. Why seek to prolong the current way of doing things at the expense of development and discovery that can open up new avenues? Do you think future generations will thank us for condemning them to live in relative poverty by eking out the resources we've been able to find, and blocking their attempts to discover and exploit any others?

The best way to assure the welfare of future generations is to accumulate wealth ourselves and then pass it on to them, not to force them into squalor and then lecture them about living within their means.

Beautifully put, Jon J.

>>The best way to assure the welfare of future generations is to accumulate wealth ourselves and then pass it on to them, not to force them into squalor and then lecture them about living within their means.<<

I dips me lid.

Nicely put JJ.