It is my hope, however unreal, that people throughout the world will eventually have equality of opportunity wherever they are born; that the present apartheid which exists between rich and poor nations will cease to exist.

However Farida Akhter, presenting herself as representative of women from the less-developed world, seemingly would have it otherwise.

Perhaps there will always be a divide, where those presently existing in poverty will always do so – will always consume less, will always have a “smaller footprint” on the earth. Why should anyone want that to be so? Why should anyone want it to be perpetuated due to birthrates in excess of the parents’ capacity to provide from the limited resources available to them? Why should those parents not accept assistance, from wherever it is available, in the provision of education, maternal health, and ability to control their own fertility?

In 1994 Dr Taslima Nasreen was hounded out of Bangladesh in fear for her life, under declaration of a fatwah upon her, for daring to make a suggestion about the Koran being improved by updating it to the 20th century. It is unlikely that Farida Akhter will ever be confronted similarly by Bangladesh fundamentalists.

The author of this article is totally off the planet in her attitude to population.

There has been a massive population overshoot.It doesn't matter whether this overshoot is mainly in poorer countries with low carbon emissions.The population is still way far too much for the Earth to bear.

Like it or lump it,there will be a correction and most likely it will be by Nature herself.The carnage will be worse in extremely overpopulated nations like Bangla Desh.You bred yourselves into this hole and you are still digging yourselves deeper.

The first logical thing to do would be to stop digging.The second would be to stop expecting assistance from other nations.They will have more than enough to cope with themselves.Get used to it.

When will women and poor people learn to shut up and do as they are told by their betters?

Oh dear. We haven't yet realised that it isn't carbon dioxide that is controlling global warming!
It is amazing how educated people haven't yet understood that without carbon dioxide there is no life on earth.
The UN calls for less carbon dioxide and, at the same time, (November 17th, FAO meeting in Rome) calls for more food production to feed an expanding global population.
MORE CO2 equals more food. Less CO2 means less food.
The time is going to come when steps will have to be taken to stop further population growth.On our current course, wars to obtain food will break out and the problem will be solved with a great loss of blood.
Population is a problem. Blaming CO2 for climate change is just nonsense. Look what the experts at the Climate Research Unit have had to do to prove that the planet is warming>

Australia is a very dry continent with only small areas of land that have reliable rainfalls and good soils, and many other rural areas unsustainably farmed upon, particularly for cotton and rice by river irrigation in areas of low rainfall. We are already approaching overpopulation here, because the way people live here, our greenhouse emissions are very high. As people may not want to change, and in a free society we can't do too much to make them, we have to slow increasing emissions by reducing immigration. From certain countries, we know who they are, they have lower wages and lower living costs than Australia, representing a considerable incentive for economic migrants to come here. Also 'refugees' who stop-over in safe havens such as Indonesia or India, rather than staying there will press on not because they need to get away, but because we're the Emerald City.

Allowing people in from low per capita emitting countries increases the global emissions massively. While using bicycles, living crammed into tiny flats, walking or using mopeds back home and not having air conditioning or many consumer goods, it is naivety and stupidity to suggest that bringing them in has little impact. Immigrants, particularly economic immigrants come with an expectation of a vastly increased standard of living and that means 2-3 cars at home, air conditioned McMansions, a raft of disposable consumer goods, and daily electricity consumption of over 10 or even 20 kWh.

The population issue is relevant because many plead to come here because of famine etc. This is brought on by population being too high for everyone to have decent housing and reliable food supply. Rather than encouraging such overpopulation, by giving tonnes of food aid, perhaps we should give more family planning aid and information and reduce food aid. Then let nature take its course as a there would soon be a swift population reduction and then later less demand exceeding supply for food, water and housing.

Manorina just about sums up the post colonial anti-populationist position. Mad.

The author has written a well researched and considered piece - the first I think to link women in developing countries with population.

The anti-populationist doom and gloomers always focus on developing nations when the real culprits for carbon emissions are developed nations. The real problem for population is Africa with fertility rates of five or six children per family.

Having travelled extensively through India and Asia, it's not population that's the key problem. It's a lack of education for women and girls. A secondary problem is movement to cities, especially in India (Mumbai and Africa) which throws up a raft of attendant problems such as health.