I'd have to go back and look at the figures but I was under the distinct impression that fertility rates were declining everywhere. The population trends may well be as this author states, but I seem to recall reading that this point about fertility rates declining was being kicked around because demographers previously thought fertility rates were linked to income, and now they don't think it is..

I don't have time to check myself but someone else may have more insight into the debates..

A great article, which highlights what some of us have been saying for the last 30 years. If only we had acted 30 years ago, but even now we don't address the problem at the political level as is pointed out, for fear of upsetting the Catholic Church. Its a scandal, it really is.

The author states "Pinched funding for family planning and reproductive health reflects larger obstacles to a sustainable world population".

This may be true, but unfortunately he takes a very simplistic view of things.

The planet as a whole is already in overshoot.

Sustainable is a word that has no relevance or meaning in our real world.

For a realist like me, the writing has been on the wall for a long time.

We are what we are and we will do what we do, despite policy decisions by governments, our innate self is sewing the seed of our own species destruction.

It won't happen in my lifetime but the evidence is just to obvious to ignore.

Family planning will do nothing, we have already crossed the 'event horizon' on too many things needed to sustain our species on a planet as finite as ours.

Energy is going to be the key in how the entire industrial world we live in falls apart, despite the ponzi shale gas and oil plays that have been touted as the worlds energy saviour. Nuclear will also not be a saviour. We are on the cusp of a great turning, particularly for anyone living in the first world. Ponzi finance is coming home to roost and we all will feel the rebound effects.

I thank my lucky stars that I do not and will not need the industrial economy to maintain my current lifestyle, other than a little bit of technology that allows me to post here and elsewhere.

Delusion seems to be running rampant and humans, as a species, are becoming more and more deluded by the day.

Curmudgeon,
When I was at Uni, global population was about 3 billion and growing at about 1.8% pa, so about 55 million more mouths per year. Thankfully, that growth rate has declined to 1.1% today, but with 7.1 billion people, the expansion is now 80 million per year on that larger base. That is 25 million more each year than 40 years ago.
The planet sees total foot print over all humans and doesn't care about growth rates its the number of additional feet that makes up the total footprint.
Its easy to lie with statistics as some alarmists do, saying that population growth rate is falling, but the fact is that there has never been a time when human population has expanded by a larger number of people each year than at present.

The fact about all populations, humans included, is that they can only expand as long as there are sufficient resources. Anyone subjectively claiming there are "too many people" is missing the point. Organisations or academics don't determine whether we have too many people or not, that is done by the availability of resources, the spread of disease, climatic conditions, availability of healthcare, economic conditions etc. All species have periods of increase and decrease dependent on resource availability. The bottom line is if there is sufficient food and other resources for 10 billion then we will have 10 billion. Humans are a successful species which will continue to increase in numbers for the forseeable future, regardless of what environmentalists say.

Atman's comments on population rising to meet the available resources would be appropriate if humans were yeast, but we are not.

Humans are the only species to have developed an intellect and a consciousness of who we are in time and space. Any other life form would behave as Atman suggests. Rabbits, rats, prickly pears, cane toads etc all follow Atman's rules.
The question is, are humans capable of breaking that biological bond? The selfish gene if you like.
The evidence suggest that we can. In about 42 countries, the human population is stable or declining. Fertility rates of well below Australia's 1.9 are common, so with its intellect, this species Homo Sapiens, is capable of choosing to live within its limits.

Improving the availability and quality of family planning services in developing countries will deliver many benefits, and I support it. But it’s misleading to imply that this alone is enough to solve any pressures arising from population growth.

This article says that the UN’s higher fertility estimates are “largely because many governments are no longer making family planning a high priority.” I saw no reference to this in the actual UN report – can someone point me to the page number, or is this the author’s interpretation?

If unplanned pregnancies are about the same in developed and developing countries, doesn’t this mean that making better family planning available will not make a large difference to unwanted pregnancies, much less reduce them to zero.

The author says, “The demographers of the United Nations seem not to be on speaking terms with their scientific colleagues who study climate change and the planet's ecosystems and natural resources.” If this is true, and the demographers are wrong, then the problem solves itself. The increase in life expectancy that the demographers assume will not materialise, and in combination with the projected slowing birth rates, population growth will be slower than the projections suggest.

Atman is right – there is an internal inconsistency in the article’s argument.

Curmudgeon
The projections still suggest declining fertility in developing countries, but the decline is slower and from a higher base:

“… in the less developed regions as a whole [fertility] is expected to drop from 2.69 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.29 in 2045-2050 and to 1.99 in 2095-2100.”

So global population sill levels out, but a bit later and at higher levels than previously projected.

Peter Strachan you stated "The evidence suggest that we can. In about 42 countries, the human population is stable or declining. Fertility rates of well below Australia's 1.9 are common, so with its intellect, this species Homo Sapiens, is capable of choosing to live within its limits."

Sound's great, the problem for the broader species is we are not living within the limits.

I could list just too many issues that are proof humans are wreaking havoc on the planet, but what's the point, as I stated earlier we are an innate being and as such we will keep on doing what we do.

End result, obvious.

As to those that espouse technology as the solution, keep on dreaming, it just won't happen.

Geoff of Perth, you are absolutely correct. Population growth is just one of the pieces in the consumption jigsaw. Population stabilisation or even decline is by no means a silver bullet, nor as you intimate, is technological advance.

The world is already seeing the effects of limits to growth and scarcity driving conflict. Egypt is battling to secure dwindling water supplies and it imports 50% of its food. Does that situation make conflict more or less likely? Syria experienced 2 or 3 years of severe drought prior to the current turmoil which has so far led to the deaths of over 100,000 people. Was that food scarcity the trigger for dissent? (I was there 5 years ago and fertility rates in the poor north were over 5!)

The other major factor is affluence, or the propensity to consume which as we see, despite the best efforts of conservationists, continues to rise.

My point is that continued population expansion makes any attempt to reverse the environmental overshoot caused by over-consumption that has already occurred, virtually impossible. Any advances brought on by technology or a reduction in affluence are quickly swallowed up by more hungry mouths.

Its a multi-pronged, complex problem. I am not prepared to sit by, sniping from the sidelines and watch it happen, even if it seems to be inevitable. This is why I am standing for the WA Senate for the Stable Population Party (www.populatonparty.org.au)to create awareness & give people who are concerned about environmental overshoot, caused by population growth and over-consumption, to show their concern and vote for policies designed to avoid the worst impacts of population growth.

*Humans are a successful species which will continue to increase in numbers for the forseeable future, regardless of what environmentalists say.*

Well yes, its happening as Darwin predicted it does, in his "Origin of Species". When the resources do run out, the crash is usually swift, messy and rather painful to all concerned. Given that we now operate globally, it will probably be global or large parts of it. Just a shame that we have to do it the hard way and wreck large parts of the planet in the process. Clearly we aren't smart enough as a species, to go against nature. Silly things like religion get in the way.

Peter Strachan
thanks .. I'm sure what you say is correct and the rate of increase has retreated to 1 per cent. On present trends they expect the world's population to peak some time later this century.

The problem with trying to construct a disaster scenario out of this is that most of the indicators of hunger and poverty have reversed in recent years, and they have reversed largely because countries like China and India have dumped much of the old socialist doctrines. Before that surge which boosted food prices, there was no indication that food production was outrunning production.

If you want to look at a scenario which may be close to reality check out this report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Science.. http://www.daff.gov.au/abares/publications_remote_content/publication_topics/agricultural

This gives food prices out to 2050 and estimates that they may rise by 11 per cent or so (presumably in real terms). That's serious enough but, of course, not the disaster projected by some..

Curmudgeon,
ABARES has a terrible record for predictions. A former head of the organisation predicted that if the price of eggs rose sufficiently, even the roosters would begin to lay! Strangely, six months latter they let him go!

Just three life spans ago there were less than 1 billion people on the planet and now there are 7.1 billion with more than 1 billion starving. That's more people with not enough food than were alive in total just 212 years ago. On top of that, there are another 1.2 billion living on less than $2 per day.

Cornucopian views on the ability to feed +7 billion will not prove helpful over the medium term. You can map the occurrence of food riots v.s. the price of food, which has seen a couple of large spikes since 2005. Currently food prices have fallen, as good seasons replenish stocks and weak economic conditions reduce demand (yes poor hungry people eat less when they are even poorer - see Greece).

The world's population will certainly peak. My concern is that it will come about because of a spike in deaths and not a moderation in births. As humans, we should be aiming to avoid that spike in deaths, predicted by the Limits to Growth in 1972 and updates more recently.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/meadows_limits_to_growth_30_year_update_2004.htm

Curmudgeon,

Take a look at the UN Food and Agricultural World Food Price Index. Food prices went up sharply in 2007 and have stayed high ever since/

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/

“When food prices hit a certain critical level, Marco Lagi, Karla Z. Bertrand, and Yaneer Bar-Yam show, people tend to turn to violence–because their desperation hits a level at which they have nothing left to lose.”

http://au.businessinsider.com/food-prices-and-social-unrest-chart-2012-11

See also this article from the Conversation, where it is noted that growth in grain productivity is not keeping up with population growth in a number of countries.

http://theconversation.com/crop-crisis-why-global-grain-demand-will-outstrip-supply-15298?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+21+June+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+21+June+2013+CID_1e54548cd2f1fa21bee7d2fc788df73f&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Crop%20crisis%20Why%20global%20grain%20demand%20will%20outstrip%20supply

Another issue is increasing affluence in several large countries. India has doubled its milk production over the past 15 years due to extra demand from the middle class, and grain is fed to dairy cows. Meat consumption in China is now twice as high as in the United States, and the Chinese now consume more pork than Americans on a per capita basis. The grain will go to the people who can pay for it, not Yemeni slum dwellers and the like, regardless of whether it will be fed to people or animals.

Thanks Peter, a very good reply and summary of where we sit in the broader sense of the word.

There is little point trying to put your point across to Curmudgeon (Mark Lawson), he is in the growth camp, and yes he sometimes does understand the basics of reality, but he does not really have a great grasp of the bigger picture, no malice intended Mark!

ABARE are about as useful as t.ts on a bull, they have a very, very bad record of accuracy against their litany of forecasting.

The irony in all of this is the reality that consumption, no matter the population nor the level of affluence or poverty, per capita, is still steering us toward a disaster of epic proportions.

I salute you for running for your party of choice, unfortunately the masses will drown you out no matter what, our innate desire is to hear the 'white noise' despite the reality surrounding us.

I am sure the skid-mark status of the Kardashian sisters is of more importance to many in our community, rather than the bigger issues that stare us in the face, and yet we deny them at every turn.

We humans are an interesting animal, such a pity we will fail to understand the failings and drivers of our own demise.

Good luck to you Sir.

Regards, Geoff

I miss all the fun by working late.

Cheer up Geoff, if the end of the world is coming, at least you're in Perth and will get two more hours from EST to enjoy it.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/memory-of-100-in-the-backyard-at-mums-starts-to-fade-20130707-2pkb6.html#ixzz2YOwTvxWp

How about this comment on the Stable Population Party Facebook page today referring to Associate Professor Carolyn Whitzman from Melb Uni (as quoted above) being in the clutches of developers.

"Her position appears to be funded by the high rise property development industry to spruik propaganda. They are in cahoot$ with some institutions, via the almighty dollar, with uni's etc under pressure from decreased Gov funding." said the SPP. Any comment?

Have you got any factual evidence that ABARE stats are shonky? I was interested as that would make a compelling news story as its figures are used by Caucus and policy makers.

Peter Strachant -- <a multi-pronged, complex problem. I am not prepared to sit by, sniping from the sidelines and watch it happen, even if it seems to be inevitable. This is why I am standing for the WA Senate for the Stable Population Party (www.populatonparty.org.au)to create awareness & give people who are concerned about environmental overshoot, caused by population growth and over-consumption, to show their concern and vote for policies designed to avoid the worst impacts of population growth.>

Peter, I admire your can do attitude. However, I did wonder where you stand on immigration, given that I read that they are currently bringing in about 130,000 people a year(maybe somebody has the figures on this). This is like bringing a whole big regional town full of people in every year.
Given that politicians get elected on the strength of the economy and the economy feeds off more and more customers to buy homes, goods, services, retail etc. would you as a politician be able to stand by your stated population growth mission to reduce population once elected and earning a lovely huge politicians salary.

Anglo-saxon people really don’t have a problem with keeping their child bearing limited, it is the Immigrants coming in to white countries causing the increases in family size and population.
They run from war-torn, resource poor, over-populated countries and expect us to pick up the mess of their failing to stop breeding, until there is standing room only in the countries they flee from.

I hope you would focus more on this than on bashing white mothers, economically, and making it tough for them when it is not they who are the problem. That would be taking the easy way out and ignoring the real problem. Also you may require all those lovely votes from
those immigrants to hang on to your 6figure salary.

I hope you would stay true to your mission.

Gee Cherful, you and Geoff out to get together, you'd be great as a standup act.

It's a but rough accusing the SPP candidate of revelling in his $160K salary when he hasn't got the job yet.

It's about 220,000 temp migrants including 80,000 international students and about 100,000 permanents per year. Have to keep in mind it's a two way street with people leaving all the time as well as arriving - ie, it's not a static phenomena

Cherful

You need to check out the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures if you don't know how many people are coming into the country. Latest figures are for the year ending December 2012. <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0> "[N]et overseas migration recorded for the year ended 31 December 2012 (235,900 people) was 17.0%, or 34,400 people, higher than the net overseas migration recorded for the year ended 31 December 2011 (201,600 people)". Assuming an emigration rate of over 70,000, it means total immigration was over 300,000. (Canberra's population is not all that much more than that - 370,000 or so). And that's on top of natural increase of 158,300. Overall growth rate 1.8% - Third world stuff.

But returning to Engelman. Perhaps Curmudgeon didn't really read the article but the latest figures are higher than predicted (9.6 billion by mid-century) because fertility has stalled or even reversed in many countries, not least in Sub-Saharan Africa. A quadrupling of Nigeria's population, of course, is not going to happen. Water and food scarcity will put paid to that if disease doesn't get in first.

popnperish
<A quadrupling of Nigeria's population, of course, is not going to happen. Water and food scarcity will put paid to that if disease doesn't get in first.>

War also!
Of course underpopulated, with good family planning
contraception countries like Australia, is where they will try to gain entry as they are driven by war, famine or disease from their own lacking contraception, through lack of male-political-will, countries.

The United Nations and all the male leaders in it are a joke and
wars and famine, the extinction of animals, overconsumption, global warming, will never stop, until they address the huge
white elephant of contraception standing right in the middle
of the room.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King,
It's a bit rough accusing the SPP candidate of revelling in his $160K salary when he hasn't got the job yet.

I didn't accuse him of anything, I merely asked him the hard questions
that someone aspiring to be a politician has to be asked.

Nobody keeps their job as a politician for long if the economy is failing badly. I asked him how he would handle this fact and still be able to carry out his mission of stabilizing the population which in my eyes means stopping excessive immigration. There are not
many I feel who would succeed, maybe, Peter could.

Paddy, keep the tear-felt angst to yourself.

I am not a 'Doomer' I am a realist.

You are just one of the blind faithful who see what you want to see.

I, on the other hand, can read a good scientific article, whether it be peer reviewed or not, and see through the Bullsh.t. You obviously can't or don't want to.

If you want a clear example of ABARE and it's unrealistic prognostications, can I suggest you go to the ABS and compare their forecasts for GDP and reality, I doubt you will find any realistic comparison, I have yet to find one to date.

Given your (Cheryl's) optimistic evaluation of the future, have you given serious consideration of giving up your position in Australia's future to some poor and document deleted individual from Sri Lanka claiming economic sanctuary rather than real social or political refugee status...........I didn't think so.

Get a grip and realise we have a shallow window of opportunity to change things, they are not what the MSM and politicians want you to hear, grow up, educate yourself and realise we are in for the ride of a lifetime, good or bad depending on your self interest.

I know that nothing the Govt or vested interests will impact on me, I have made my own plans and I look forward to future posts that justify my stance. Good luck with your own mantra

Cheers Geoff

How can people have family planning when the IMF and World Bank corrupt poor countries and keep them in inescapable debt Dr Rima Laidbow says," Give women an education and the power to control their fertility." Also see 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. The very people who write essays are like this,are part of the problem because they won't address the root cause.

Articles like this are being used to justify their " New World Order" ie an unelected world Govt run by Corporations. Keeping people poor and ignorant increases populations.Stop spending money on weapons of mass destruction.

Humans have become what rabbits once were: a plague!

Given their negative impact on the world especially in the last two hundred years, the planet is in serious decline. Global warming is only one of the negatives created by this 'successful?' species.

Humans are so dumb they think that making a bucket of money is next to godliness! They also think that killing and plundering is the recipe for peace.

Stupid humans. Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs and they are ruled by what is positioned between their legs!

Arjay-How can people have family planning when the IMF and World Bank corrupt poor countries and keep them in inescapable debt Dr Rima Laidbow says," Give women an education and the power to control their fertility." Also see 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. The very people who write essays are like this,are part of the problem because they won't address the root cause.

There is truth in what you say Arjay but poverty is only part of the
problem. It is a lack of will by the male leadership in countries
and especially the religious based male leadership including the POPE
to even address the problem. The West gives billions in aid
around the world but the leaders in these countries wouldn't
dream of spending it on family planning clinics. Religious
zealots in power in the American Government wouldn't either.

A lot of foreign aid is chanelled into the pockets of the ruling
elites and their families and the thought of using the money for
something like women and children's health is not considered.

I think the truth is, that if the male leaders in all the overpopulated countries and Western male leaders as well,
suddenly decided to address this issue full on and all worked
together and asked Western countries to bankroll it, it could be done
in record time. What's needed to bring it about is the will.

Excellent article except for the omission of the fact that in many Islamic societies family planning & reproductive health of women is not allowed/condoned.

Judith,it is not just Islamic countries that ignore birth control. The Catholic church still opposes all forms of birth control.

The religion thing is a bit of a scapegoat, isn't it? I thought it was about the economics of slavery through the ability to obtain an ultra-cheap workforce via the denial of birth control. The question is whether this is advantageous for a country? Personally I think it will fail tragically, as slave labour economies like India and Bangladesh are now oversupplying the world market and are undercutting one another to gain market share. Meanwhile, the large population growth rates have made these nations dyfunctional cesspits of human deprivation.

The pop-growth zealot philosophy sees these humanitarian disasters as future economic powerhouses, whereas the evidence would suggest that infrastructure and an educated population are more important.

The answer to the population bomb is simple and -I would have thought- self-evident.
Better hospitals and an end to War.
Look at the countries targeted in this article. When mothers lose babies -and anticipate losing more- they have more babies.
Duh.
All the countries where infant mortality is lowest have negative growth, excepting immigration -and perhaps one crazy country that has actually been paying teenage girls to have children...
Another excellent counter incentive is compulsory schooling; especially in agrarian societies. The children in such places stop being a valuable (free labour) asset, and become more of a liability.
The simple way to have fewer children is to take better care of the children we have.

<When mothers lose babies -and anticipate losing more- they have more babies.
Duh.>

Funnily enough, the WHO estimates that there are over 200 million women of childbearing age who want to control their fertility but have no access to contraception. Because of this there are about 80 million unwanted pregnancies each year.

To paraphrase: When women of childbearing age - dont have access to contraception - they have more babies.
Double Duh.

You can see the benefit when contraception is made available in poverty stricken parts of the world: Women choose to have a more comfortable life, have fewer children and give them a better education. They do not tend to fit the stereotype offered by Grim of the Mum intent on having a cricket team to provide for her in old age.

Arjay, the article specifically stated the Catholic Church's continuing anti family planning stance in certain areas of the world but there was an absence of comment for similar in a number of Islamic nations. The world's problems can not be solved with continuing population growth. If we are all to survive/achieve a satisfactory standard of living, continual population growth MUST cease.

SPP and other anti immigration anti population growth advocates rely upon statistical inflation to impose their point about high immigration and population growth.

The "immigrants" cited include permanents of course, but they are outnumbered by temporaries including Australian citizens.

Question for SPP, if there was cap on NOM of say 200k annually which has been cited, what happens with Australian citizens previously not in the estimated resident population trying to return home for more than 12/16 months, if the annual cap has been met? (not unlike Australian residents being stopped from returning during white Australia times if they did not pass a 'language test').

Obviously nowadays we are only talking population numbers i.e. quantitative not qualitative, aren't we?

Paul Ehrlich who wrote the "Population Bomb" had been a collaborator with John Tanton, The Sierra Club and FAIR Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform but parted ways or distanced himself upon discovering that FAIR had accepted funds from the 'white supremacist group' the Pioneer Fund http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker66.html

More sensible academic research, analysis, discussion and conclusions can be found via:

Prof Ian Goldin et al http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ian-goldin/what-do-7-billion-people-_b_1064352.html

and

the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College:

' PopDev, Spring 2006 Fears of overpopulation are pervasive in American society. From an early age we are taught that population pressure is responsible for poverty, hunger, environmental degradation and even political insecurity. Conventional wisdom, however, is not always wise...' http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40

As Goldin stated in an interview on Philip Adam's Lateline, not only are we observing significant slowdowns in population growth, but in future most of the world will be competing for workers, professionals and immigrants from Africa, with flows of money, culture and ideas in both directions, the best form of international development

G'day Andras, thanks for the links; good post.
G'day Fester, while I would certainly agree that contraception is a helluva lot more fun than abstention, my contention is that family planning is only a part of the problem, and possibly not even the larger part.
As far as overpopulation goes, let's look at those countries mentioned in the article again.
Afghanistan ranks 173 on the world population stakes, with a population density of 39 per square kilometre.
South Sudan 202 with a population density of 18/sq.km
Timor-Leste ranks 135, with a population density of 71/sq.km.,
Somalia 211, with a population density of 15/sq.km.
Ethiopia 121, with a population density of 81/sq.km.
Compare this to say the Netherlands, which always ranks fairly high in average wealth and happiness: 497 per sq. kilometre. Or Singapore, 7,543 per sq.km.
I'm pretty sure these 2 countries have full access to family planning.
Actually, if we treated Singapore as “normal”, we could probably fit the entire human population inside South Australia.
I seem to recall one female Asian academic mounting an argument some years back, that the World Bank was deliberately stopping third world countries from becoming wealthy, by deterring them from building up 'optimal' populations.
People make wealth.
The stats show clearly that over population isn't the problem in the countries mentioned, and even if families in war torn countries had access to contraceptives, it's doubtful the majority would use them.
That's just the view of a baby BOOMER.

<People make wealth.>

But they need education and infrastructure to do so. In places like Ethiopia and Sudan you have little of either. And uneducated voters are ripe for corrupt governance, which worsens their plight. In contrast, Singapore and the Netherlands, and Japan for that matter, have high levels of education and infrastructure.

<The stats show clearly that over population isn't the problem in the countries mentioned,>

Really? Consider fertility rates:

Afghanistan : 5.64
Ethiopia : 5.97
Somalia : 6.26
Sudan : 4.17
Timor Leste : 3.06

The Netherlands : 1.78
Singapore : 0.78

Would you conclude from this that high population growth rates do not correlate with poor infrastructure, poorly educated populations and corrupt and inferior governance?

<and even if families in war torn countries had access to contraceptives, it's doubtful the majority would use them.>

Could you provide an example? Where family planning programs are provided, they tend to result in lower birth rates, so obviously some people use them.

I believe that people should have a choice to control their fertility and that governments should not interfere.

G'day Fester,
thanks for reinforcing my point. Can you not see the irony of the author writing about over population, then citing under populated countries?
Yes, the problem in Sudan etc, is not enough hospitals, schools and infrastructure constantly undermined and destroyed by conflict and war, as I mentioned in my first post.
Yes, the imperative to have more children is less in well populated, orderly and lawful countries (as I pointed out).
This is more because they are well populated, orderly and lawful than because they have access to birth control.
You want “an example”?
I didn't think signing off as a baby (post-war) BOOMER was a terribly subtle hint.
An example? Have we truly gone so far down the road of sex is purely recreational, that we've forgotten what it's actually for?
Most children aren't just mistakes, or errors of judgement, even before contraceptives or where they are not available (arguably less so in heavily male dominated societies).
As a early OPEC minister was quoted as saying; “(before we found oil) we were very poor. Our women would have 6 or 7 babies, in the hope that just one would survive”.
I agree that people should be able to make their own decisions, and that birth control is a wonderful thing for controlling population growth.
I just think good hospitals, schools, minimising infant mortality and ending war are even better.

Grim,

Do you seriously think that all land is equal, that desert, steep mountain slopes, or semi-arid rangeland has the same carrying capacity as prime agricultural land with plenty of water and deep, fertile volcanic soil? Australia's average wheat production per hectare is about 2 tons, according to the World Bank. In the Netherlands, it is 8 tons. In addition, some countries, especially city states, can have much denser populations than they could support with the local agriculture, because they produce goods or services that they can trade for food. It ought to be obvious that this isn't a strategy that everyone could follow.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation World Food Price Index has been extremely high since 2007, and the high prices are strongly correlated with social unrest.

http://au.businessinsider.com/food-prices-and-social-unrest-chart-2012-11

Don't you imagine that if it were easy to produce a lot more food, we would already be doing it? According to the Global Footprint Network, which has done the numbers, we are already in about 40% environmental overshoot because we are using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. Think of aquifers being pumped dry under the Punjab.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf

The global fertility rate has declined, down to 2.4 births per woman%, and some countries have gone down to or below replacement level (2.33 globally, 2.1 in developed countries), but the growth is from a much larger base, so we are still adding about 80 million people a year. Even if all countries brought their fertility rates down to replacement level, it would take up to 70 years to stop population growth, because the children are being born to the large young adult generation, while most of the deaths are occurring in the relatively tiny elderly generation. Australia is still growing by demographic momentum, even though the fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976.

Hi Grim.

The article is about high population growth as a result of high fertility, not high population density.

<Yes, the problem in Sudan etc, is not enough hospitals, schools and infrastructure constantly undermined and destroyed by conflict and war, as I mentioned in my first post.>

And also because there are not the skilled people nor resources to provide the needed infrastructure for the growing population even in times of peace. We obviously disagree on this point, which is why I ask you for real examples. For example, can you provide an example of a nation with a high fertility rate which has good infrastructure, an educated population, and good governance? Why do you think that none exist?

<As a early OPEC minister was quoted as saying; “(before we found oil) we were very poor. Our women would have 6 or 7 babies, in the hope that just one would survive”.>

Have you ever wondered whether the women referred to agreed with the statement? Do we understand their reasoning for having children? I dont, nor is it my business, but I would like to to see them empowered to choose how many and when they have children.

I think comments from women in developing countries about contraception are important. After all, they are the most relevant subjects in this discussion, aren't they? Perhaps Grim, seeing as there are no examples to support you views at a national level, you could find individual examples? Maybe you can give an example of a woman in a developing country who has had many children, seen them all educated to a high standard, and who comments that it was her choice and made her life easier? With billions to pick from, surely it should be a cinch.

Family planning is effective when there is greater prosperity, which explains why richer countries tend to have lower birth rates. The bad news is that greater prosperity also means over-consumption, which negates the benefits of having lower birth rates.

On top of that, a global capitalist system requires increasing production and consumption of goods in order to maintain economic growth. That means the prosperous middle class, which makes up only a small portion of the global population, can only maintain their earnings as long as the middle class grows.

My understanding of family planning is that it is effective when offered. Critics tend to be presumptuous about the wishes of women in developing countries, usually presuming that such women want to have lots of kids for all manner of reasons.

<The bad news is that greater prosperity also means over-consumption, which negates the benefits of having lower birth rates.>

What does this mean? Does it mean that Tokyo and Dharavi are on a par? It also makes me wonder what sort lives people should be living. I myself am a technical optimist and have no guilt about my consumption. Rather, I see technological progress as the driver of prosperity, and I have no desire to have a Year Zero life.

You might also note that capitalism has no requirement for population growth. Surely even a cursory glance at economies would suggest that technical development has much more to offer than ballooning populations.

*My understanding of family planning is that it is effective when offered*

Exactly!