The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Supplying sustainability > Comments

Supplying sustainability : Comments

By Paula Matthewson, published 10/6/2008

With 1.7 billion more mouths to feed by 2030 there has never been greater pressure on global agriculture.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Isn't it fascinating that the writers of the recent spate of articles about the food crisis and sustainability on Online Opinion ignore the impact of population growth? What is this? A conspiracy of silence?

For your info, here are a few quotes from the UN report World Population Policies 2007: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2007/Publication_introduction.pdf

- Many developing countries have realized the importance of reducing high rates of population growth in order to ease mounting pressure on renewable and non-renewable resources, combat climate change, prevent food insufficiency and provide decent employment and basic social services to all their people. (p.7)

- In 2007, fertility was viewed as too high in over half of developing countries, including most parts of Africa, Southcentral Asia and South-eastern Asia. (p.12)

- Fifty-four per cent of developing countries considered their fertility to be too high in 2007. Ninety per cent of the least developed countries held that view. (p.13)

- Developing countries with high fertility are grappling with the challenge of providing decent work for their growing labour forces. In 2006 there were nearly 200 million unemployed persons, an increase of 18 per cent since 1995 (ILO, 2007). The highest rates of unemployment and underemployment are found in the poorest countries. There is a general recognition that employment generation in developing countries requires employment-intensive economic growth combined with a coherent set of employment and human development policies. (p.11)

- During the last three decades, most developing countries have strengthened their support for increasing access to contraceptive methods. Even previously pronatalist Governments, which in the past had wanted to maintain or even increase population growth, have gradually modified their stance and accepted family planning and contraception as integral components of maternal and child health programmes. (p.15)

- Despite widespread government support for increasing access to contraceptives, demand is believed to outstrip supply. It is estimated that more than 100 million women lack ready access to safe and effective means of contraception. (p.14)

Developing countries obviously recognise they have a population problem. Why aren’t we doing more to help them address it with more family planning assistance?
Posted by Elizabeth Hart, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:06:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does government subsidisation on the production of ethanol and biodiesel from grain fit into your thoughts?
Unless the USA, EU and assorted countries including Australia call a halt to the subsidised expansion of the grain ethanol industry we will shortly see ten percent of the world’s grain being converted to ethanol.
Depopulation may be one answer but what about the other side of the coin.
Ever increasing standards of living in the developed world, epitomized by this demand that we must drive cars must also be looked at as an unsustainable use of the world’s resources.

And Country Girl, I do not think that subsidized higher profits for your farmers come ahead of the misery of many millions of people. The farmers time will come without the conversion of grain to ethanol
Posted by Goeff, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:22:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Population increases have to be checked, particularly if “…820 million people in developing countries are suffering from hunger today.”

If this many people are starving now, how on earth can we expect to cater for another 1.7 billion in less than a quarter of a century? How can anyone presenting these figures even think that the problem of over-population and subsequent starvation can be solved?

Plant modification might be of some use, but suitable land is still needed to grow crops. Are we to denigrate further huge tracts of land like the “Millions of hectares of natural habitats and the biodiversity they support remain undisturbed through these efforts to date”? The over-clearing of land in third world countries – due to over-population - is where it all started.

This author seems to think that it can be had both ways: use more land, but the “The quest for food must not overwhelm uncultivated land and wildlife habitat.”

Yeah!

The problem is not one of food shortages; it is one of over-population. A world which can allow a population increase of 1.7 billion by 2030 is an insane world.

It was predicted within the last week that food in Australia will become much more expensive as demand from hugely growing countries like China increase. We will pay more to ‘feed the world’. Well, to hell with that. Let the rest of the world take some responsibility for itself.

In view of the catastrophic climatic and environmental events we are told will get worse, countries like Australia, able to feed themselves, should be growing enough for themselves and exporting only whatever surplus there might be.

As it is, food export has nothing to do with fine feelings for mankind; it has to do with greed and profit (higher prices for the populations of exporting countries, to help exporters make money).

Population control is the only answer to world food shortages, and efforts to do something about the problem should be under focus – not the production of more food
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:25:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Developing countries obviously recognise they have a population problem. Why aren’t we doing more to help them address it with more family planning assistance?"

As I understand it, the main reason people in third world countries have lots of kids is to compensate for the fact that a lot of them die young and the more kids parents have, the more help they have in older age. Pretty reasonable from their point of view.

So, I believe the thing that will help them the most is to give them access to the open economy where they can gradually attain a better standard of living (and hence do without the need to have more kids). Providing family assistance on its own is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

On the subject of localised food production, I saw an interesting TV preview re urban farmimg in Cuba where vacant lots in the cities have been turned into market gardens. Could we do something similar here?

At the very least, large farm lots could be set up on the outskirts of cities adjacent to sewerage farms. Agricultural scientists could conduct plant/crop growth trials using varying degrees of purified sewage. Once they work out what cocktail works best, why not use it to fertilise the ground to enhance fertility and productivity? Then set up a transport network that takes the produce to markets in the cities.
Posted by RobP, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:25:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with most posters that reducing the world population is the answer. Why world leaders cannot see this is a mystery.

We have to do far more to demand change to RC and others thinking and tie foreign aid to birth control.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I forgot to include that the ridiculos 'baby bonus' should be the first thing to go. If we ever need more people here that could easily be accomodated by an increase in immigration for a period.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy