Rhian,

The Syrians were no longer self-sufficient in food as they were in 1960, not surprising with more than 4 times as many people. During that period of very high food prices, some food exporting countries. Thailand and Russia, I think, stopped exporting food and were able to keep their domestic population supplied. Syria had no way to buffer its people against the very high prices on the world market. To make matters worse, the Syrians were in a the grip of a very severe drought and facing a further threat to their water from the Euphrates from the dams that Turkey, which also has a fair amount of population growth, is building upstream.

The price of food closely tracks the price of oil

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/How-Oil-Prices-Affect-The-Price-Of-Food.html

The Saudis have been engaging in a price war to shut down the tight oil producers in the US and maybe make life hard for Russia and Iran. The supply of cheap, easy-lift oil is not unlimited, however, so you can expect oil prices (and food prices) to go up again.

The Syrians' own State Planning Commission estimated that the average Syrian was spending 48% of his income on food. It would be a lot more than that for the people at the bottom, so price increases that we could shrug off would be devastating for them. It is because of overpopulation that the Syrians were dependent on the world market for food and didn't have adequate safety margins.

Divergence

From 1960 to 1980 was known as the “golden age of agriculture” in Syria. Production grew strongly. This ended with a series of droughts in the 1980s.

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/HDR/UNDP-ADCR_En-2012.pdf

This has been the main cause of Syria's food security problem - compounded now, of course, by the civil war.

An ambiguous article that uses confusing and undefined expressions 'progressive', 'conservative' etc. and others that carry negative connotations in mainstream narrative or are used as pejorative terms e.g. 'population growth', 'immigration' etc.. while not addressing the elephant in the room.

While world population growth is expected to stabilise by mid century (ex Sub-Saharan Africa) due to already lower fertility rates, the first world is dealing with ageing populations which are now becoming one of the main drivers of population growth thanks to prosperity and better health, e.g. Australia it's 30% and increasing. What is Population Matters 'solution' for this part of the equation, but population is not really the issue is it?

Further, there is a connection (neither dicussed nor highlighted) between various associates including patron Paul Ehrlich, council members William Ryerson and Jane O'Sullivan, with John Tanton's network in the USA?

In a NYT article titled 'The anti-immigration crusader':

'“He is the most influential unknown man in America,” said Linda Chavez, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan who once led a Tanton group that promoted English-only laws.

While Dr. Tanton’s influence has been extraordinary, so has his evolution — from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens.

Mindful that the early-20th-century fight to reduce immigration had been marred by bigotry, Dr. Tanton initially emphasized FAIR’s identity as a “centrist group” and made arguments aimed at liberals and minorities. He allowed few local FAIR chapters, warning that a stray demagogue might “go off half-cocked and spoil the whole effort.”' http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/17immig.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

NYT's description is more restrained when compared to the Southern Poverty Legal Center's more direct description of John Tanton and his associates (thanks to robust freedoom of speech laws in the USA) https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton

Rhian,

No question that Syria, like many other countries, benefited from the Green Revolution, which led to a doubling and in some cases a tripling of grain production. Nevertheless, with more than 4 times as many people since 1960, the fact remains that they were no longer self-sufficient in food, which was consuming a very large share of the average income. Droughts are far from unknown in that part of the world, so generous safety margins are required.

You make sensible posts on other subjects, so I don't understand your attachment to population denial.

Andras Smith,

You don't have an answer to the substantive arguments, so you have to rely on insinuations of racism and referring to organisations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has form for trying to shut down debate by smearing political opponents as racists and "haters". We have very serious environmental problems now with 7 billion people, which are related to the sheer numbers of people as well as consumption. See my previous posts in this thread. The UN medium population projection has been raised to close to 11 billion by the end of the century. This is mostly due to demographic momentum and continuing high fertility in some countries. Even in the OECD, life expectancy at 65 has only gone up by 6 years for women and 4.8 years for men since 1960, and less in poorer countries.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8113161ec072.pdf?expires=1444097241&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1E17A2A39A7C7765281F846EC40F12F4

You say that population isn't a problem, but then you have a job in the immigration industry, as a so-called "education consultant" bringing foreign students to Australia with the lure of permanent residency or at least a temporary visa with working rights. Is your real objection that people like me are racists, or that at some time in the future, we might be standing between you and a big pile of money?

We know that the climate is changing. Crops no longer grow where they used to. Less rain falls where needed. Meat animals are less easy to feed. Farming is the reason for human population increases [and the decline in numbers of most other species]. Farming had to wait until Earth's climate stabilised, roughly 10,000 years ago. Before then human survival was precarious and populations stable and sustainable. The climate appears to be reverting to previous levels of severe instability and will make agriculture less productive. That will effectively reduce the human population to sustainable levels without the need for human intervention. It is quite likely that this will occur this century. If you're under forty I suggest you seriously consider whether adding another child to your responsibilities is a good idea.

Smear the messenger, don't provide any peer reviewed research evidence for claims about 'population', display sub-optimal statistical literacy etc., another tactic of neo con affiliated white nativists etc.. as documented by SPLC, ADL, Think Progress etc. in the USA.

I am not in the 'immigration industry' (and waters are muddied by too many migration agents acting as 'education agents', which universities/TAFE were and are still happy to deal with), and it is illegal for anyone except a registered MARA agent acting as sub-contractors to DIBP to provide immigration advice, although many Australians do informally e.g. enquiring on behalf of British cousins, you know, the right types :)

Maybe the govt. should be lobbied to close down the immigration dept. except for reinforcing the border protection aspects.

For a balanced expert view of world population growth see Prof. Hans Rosling's BBC doco 'This world, don't panic the truth about population' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j