大象传媒

Poor Elsa. I hope you're not planning to get rid of her because of her impact on the environment ;o)

When my late wife and I agreed to marriage in 1971, in was on the mutual grounds of no children. We never regretted it. I firmly believe overpopulation is the only problem facing humanity and our planet. Resolve it and you solve environmental destruction and climate change.

Having 3 children is not compatible in any way with being green.

Why make an attempt at reducing carbon emmisions at all, at the same time as increasing population?

Maybe it just eases the concious of those people, which is a sad motive. Humans are flawed and we only have a limited time here. Nothing we can do now can change that, so live with the guilt and accept that you're just as selfish and consuming as everyone else around you.

In order to preserve the world population and allow "everyone to be above average at mathematics"* there is a simple policy.

People born to academically able parents are more likely (not exclusively) to be academically able themselves (if only through nuture).
So academic underacheivers should be neutered before they have the opportunity to concieve.
A solution that would also vastly reduce the tax burden on all as there would be fewer 16 year olds claiming a four bed house for their illegitimately conceived offspring.

Yes we need to reduce population - but we also need to not have it dominated by people who can't do the maths and realise the fact (and work out when the numbers have shifted into sustainability...

* Paraquote of Labour's demonstration of their mathematical prowess...

after reading "concerned but not worried"'s comments, i actually become much more worried than concerned.

living in the states, it is easy to see how much of the population has an overwhelming christian faith (that was how bush was elected, i strongly believe).

though i respect people of faith and have faith myself, it scares me that people take the scriptures so seriously that they cannot see what the outcome of the world will be if they do not reduce their ecological footprint.

no matter what anyone says, the bible was written by MAN and MAN cannot always predict what will happen in the world. let's say, for the sake of argument, that god told man to write the scriptures. would man have believed during that time that this thing called "global warming" existed? of course not. the bible is full of fables to help people live their lives better. the world, in the words of the bible, was created in seven days, merely because if it was said that the world took millions and millions of years to be created, it would be unfathomable to any reader and they would not believe it.

now that we have science to contribute to our beliefs, how are people so ignorant to think that global warming cannot exist because it is not mentioned in the bible (or other religious scriptures as well i suppose)?

there is evidence all around to support that if we do not change our life style, the environment, animals, and yes, even humans, will strongly suffer. it is already showing all over in the environment, certain species of animals and in certain populations around the world.

if you want to follow the worlds of the bible, follow the part that says that it is our duty to take care of the animals and the plants. as a whole, we are not doing a very good job.

I have a good friend who shares your concern, to an extent. He and his wife have four children, and while he acknowledges that he is adding to the population problem, he also points out that he is also producing 4 very well-educated and environmentally conscious people who will be able to go out and influence others to see what they believe is important about the environment. So, you win some, you lose some. Three kids is really nothing to sweat about!! Especially when you raise them with "green" beliefs that they can then pass on to others they meet.

@Eric Hansen: Intelligent? You've fallen for and are perpetuating one of the greatest cons of the industrial age...I think not.

@Maurice: You may want to check economic indicators...that's the real driver.

@John: Yikes! Way to much power for an utterly untrustworthy government (any of them).

@Peter: Indeed...Mano a Mano is different. Methinks the compassion is somewhat necessitated by the fact that one (usually not the 'fittest') Mano can wipe out a whole mess of miscellaneous Manos with the punch of a button...

@Emma: Amen, sister...

As for me...Replacement theory. I also try to do right by the environment...picking other peoples aluminum cans out of the trash and putting them in the recycle bin RIGHT NEXT TO IT, for example...aaargh! How can we keep those idiots from breeding?

Emma and krista make a compelling argument for a matriarchal society...

Most species, humans included, tend to follow exponential models of growth. This is only prevented by the external influence of a limiting factor. This ultimately means that the population that can be sustained from a sustainable resource is one that is necessary to sustain life. There is an abundance of energy available from the sun, fossil fuels, and nuclear power. What is equally limiting is the fresh water available for life. China's population during the following decades will ultimately be limited by the availability of the fresh water it can provide, not by the amount of energy and fossil fuels it can consume. A typical Chinaman currently has poor access to fresh water and poor access to clean air. These are the health effects directly attributable to industrialisation, and shouldn't be ignored for the sake of indirect and uncertain climate phenomena hypothesised to be caused by Carbon Dioxide levels. Without doubt, the finite availability of fossil fuels is a limiting factor to the population it can cater for, but not as limiting as the many other factors currently limiting the support of lives. The mitigation of pollution known to be hazardous to life therefore should not be sacrificed for the sake of an unproven substance that we can reasonably conclude has minimal hazards to life due to the fact that we breathe it out every second of our existances.

As a heavily taxed owner of a 4x4 and holiday cottage in Florida, I am dismayed at your continued production of children (and no doubt participation in acts which would encourage said production). I shall write to the chancellor to ask that those who indulge in profligate population propagation henceforth be green taxed into oblivion, or forced to live in the London Borough of Lambeth. You could at least do the decent thing and pack them all into a car instead of selfishly taking up the entire pavement on your family trips to the local farmers market.

Growth does not continue indefinitely. Even the limitations of the available space available can become a limiting factor. In the natural world, one limiting factor to populations is either predation, or inability to provide sufficient parenting to the offspring. We have to consider the reasons for such excessive population growth. Only when we know the cause, can we formulate a solution. One of the main reasons for population growth in developing countries is not only the lack of contraception, but also the need for more offspring to provide labour to the local people. One of the reasons for mankinds great success is the combined intelligence of the species, and its ability to create innovate solutions to the perils of life. This does not eliminate inter species competition, as unfortunately humans have not been immune to genocide and apartheid. One can't but feel rather concerned by proposals to only permit the geniuses to procreate, and condemn the stupid to become neutered dinosaurs for what could be seen as the development of the species. What is most concerning is the fact that the cleverest are aware of the overstretched nature of the species and unsustainable use of resources. These individuals through their innate altruism are choosing a life of celibacy to prevent overpopulation. They also accurately perceive the magnitude of the resources that they have to sacrifice to successfully raise offspring that have sufficient skills to survive successfully. At the same time, those who are either uninformed or ignorant of the unsustainability of our existance choose to multiply in great amounts. For some of these individuals, the welfare state sustains their existance, and provides more for them than they would otherwise have available the more they reproduce. Single mothers get a living wage for bringing up children on their own, whilst the responsible parents sustaining their genes in a nuclear fashion are making personal sacrifices of their own resources, in addition to subsidising the nefarious nymphomaniacs. They are deluded by their carnal desires to think that their offspring production somehow has status within society and provides greater benefit to them. It needs to be proven to them that it is better for them that they only produce a sustainable number of offspring that have the educational means to meet the challenges they are likely to be subjected to to sustain their existance. The modern Godless world removes any responsability an individual has to ensure its offsprings future well being. With this lack of moral justice, society can adapt in a democratic fashion to favour the individual. Marxist values can become inferior to the capitalist principles when the realities of human corruption becomes evident. We need to ensure that society rewards the individual in the most appropriate way as to nurture citizens who are a benefit to the sustainance of the species. This can be interpreted in many contrasting ways. There is no definitive solution. However any justified criticism of a violation of this principle should address the problem with an alternative solution of equivalent or superior reasoning. However, the idealistic principles of a communist omnipotently just planet are ultimately unpractical in a world of great diversity that is able to adapt to the environmental challenges to which it faces.

Count me in with the people who consider your choice completely at odds with your stated goals. Not only will she add 3 more tonnes a year, she will continue doing so long after you've stopped polluting.

While I see krista's point about the advantages of having some people who are interested in the environment also having children, I think the better thing to do would be to adopt a child which already exists, rather than creating yet another person.

People always try to justify having children, but it always seems to come down to a completely irrational desire to pass on your own genes.

I admit that you've done more to reduce your footprint than I've done, but I just can't respect your decision to have any children, let alone a third one, given your stated goal of reducing emissions.

We could debate the ethics of having three children until we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that you now have a third child. Being an ethical man (and a good parent) now demands that you love her and make her feel wanted, whatever her carbon footprint. This is not the kind of thing that can be undone, so for goodness sake don't let her believe that you regret her birth.

Keep trying to reduce your carbon footprint, raise her to be environmentally ethical, and you've done all you can given your situation. And, for what it's worth, I don't think a few peolple having a 3-child family is a bad thing. This country's population is ageing and the numbers only supported by immigration. We will need young people entering the workforce in the future to support all of us when we're old and frail.

Nicola

For some time I've thought that you should have a choice: Car or child.

Initialially a couple would be allowed 2 cars and 1 child.

Then if they have another child, they are only allowed 1 car

If they have 3 children they may not have a car.

Not sure what happens if you get to 4 children!!!!!!!

I know its an oversimplification, because it assumes that cars are the only polluters, but it does mean that by having more than the sustainable number of children, you have to reduce your emission higher than others would.

It also removes the need for people carriers!

If anyone if daft enough to believe that god or any other such fictional being will save us then you should be sterilised!

As much I may love free will there comes a point when humanity as a whole must wake up to the fact that they may be many things that we don not understand but god in any sense of the word was just an idea. a way to explain the world around us by primitive people, yes religion has done some good things for the world but its not needed to be a good person. Like for me, i have never believed in god my entire life. Since I was given the choice to see the world & make up my own mind, instead of being taken to church/mosque/chapel etc & to be frank (brain-washed) just imagine how many of the worlds problems have been caused by people using religion as an excuse!

There are two questions in general I would like to see Justin answer :-
1 Why weren鈥檛 you doing all of these 鈥渆thical鈥� things already, and not just as a response to Newsnight鈥檚 producer?
2 Why is it that your consumption is still well above the 鈥淥ne Earth鈥� sustainabilty level?

Five years ago Radio4's 'Leading Edge' programme did a "Mass Extinctions" special in which several evolution experts were interviewed.
The programme made it quite clear that man's activity is bringing about extinctions at about 100x the 'natural' rate, that we are on the verge of a new mass extinction and that this extinction includes us.
The only way in which the present population is maintained is through the abundance of fossil fuels, one day these WILL run out, and, as an elecrical engineer, I know that there is is no real "organic" substitute. According to James Lovelock ("Gaia" author) the Earth can sustain only about 2.5 billion people so we are already over-subscribed by 4 billion, one day we will have to account for this excess.
Pessimism tells me that this will be catastrophic - possibly as the result of the pushing of the "Big Red Button"; optimism tells me that, long after the oil and coal have run out man has a wonderful future living organically in tune with the Earth.
We do seem to have a choice.

Eric Hansen (above) wrote: "I didn't have time to read your whole posting..." ... but I do have time to write a response that is even longer than your whole posting. Religious people don't do themselves any favours.

Whether you believe or not on the article, sense it could affect your life decisions as important as is to have a child of your own, it's important to be open minded about it, there's very little talk about this, something that is so important, for that I admire to see this posting and I encourage more talks about it instead of trying to shutting it down with a simple argument. We live in a different time than our previous generations and we have to put that into account. The importance is to offer solutions rather than conclusions. I personally have this dilemma do I have a child, if so do I have a second one to not be lonely in offer a better environment when growing up, if I'm capable? Do I adopt, and lose my chance to have my DNA and resemblance of me passed on to the future? Many kids are in need of adoption, should this be an extra point to consider? Do I assume that population will be doomed at some point and there's nothing we can do to change the evolutionary growth tide? Is it all part of a long natural cycle, should we be concerned about it? and many more questions without one simple answer, that we should be aware of. The importance is to allow these questions.

Here is one solution i propose, which may lead many to disagree, I believe that the same way we get shots for flu, we should have a free worldwide option not to have kids as men reach puberty, and through a doctor or a controlled method allow to do so when the time comes, like flipping a switch, to becoming productive when the choice to have a child is made, the opposite of how we behave now. This might drop our population to a 1.7 number of children, which i think would be the numbers if we were to remove most of the kids born "that were unplanned". And even dough facts can be gathered by women being pregnant, I believe majority of the responsibility lays on men, rarely discussed by the media and surveys. To have a child it is a tough call, I'm turning 25, and the current mentality and cultural behavior aren't just the same as it were for my father, or his father, I also find myself divided into having a child or not, ethnically or not.

BRIAN:

Note the posting I made and made reference to containing the facts and the reality has been objected to and removed.

Ask the question 'why would anyone want to remove what is and what is happening - it's not as if I made the numbers up is it?

The hardest thing in todays Politically Correct World is getting people to face up to reality.
Which is somewhat sad, as that reality will one day in the not too distant future kick them in the butt!
All they will be able to say as it does is
'oops'
'we should have done something about it earlier'
'never mind we are where we are etc.'
So that's ok then.
All I can say to the indigenous population 50 years down the road, is 'we failed you, so Good Bloody Luck', and luck is all they'll have!

I think that it is unfair on the child to be punished for the misemeanours of their parents. I think all parents should be accountable to their children. This is usually reciprocated by a corollary that children respect their parents support. Society also has an obligation to the welfare of its citizens and that this should encourage the value of good parenting and giving parents the powers they need to be good parents. Children have been victimised, and this has led to a blame culture without finding feasible solutions. Parents find themselves ill equipped to provide support for their children in modern society, and take the easy option out. I think we should prevent the need for adoption by ensuring parents stay together. Adoption should not be a consequence of orphaned children from poor parenting that shifts or delegates their parental role to someone else or society. This should also involve ensuring prior compatability is present before a child is created. If you can't ask your parents for advice, who can you ask ? It should feel good to be valued within society, and part of this is providing good support for the sustainance of the species and this includes good parenting. This involves rearing offspring to form the next generation, but it also involves rearing responsible adults who form a successful society who aren't a burden on society. This should be promoted with a good educational framework to facilitate best parenting practices. People will agree with these values, and society will benefit from it. Too many people are easily influenced by peer pressure and the ego individuals crave from society to have a need for an active sex life, large genitalia, and well received sexual performance and libido. This has been promoted by the likes of fhm, loaded and cosmopolitan, which have emphasised the reproductive desires individuals innately crave. In this world of viagra and the contraceptive pill, society has become complacent to the nature of sex, and its evolutionary purpose. Many people also have pets, who also consume food and resources. This could be interpreted as unethical. Particularly by types who consider it an enslavement of wild animals against their free will. Well, no-one will be taking my cat away from me. He's so dependent on our human support, that I doubt he would survive long in the wild. I always respect his feelings and am sensitive to his needs. He has the freedom to roam as he wishes, and he is affectionnate. He is neutered, but I would not say he is independent. Parents are asked to support children far more than in the past. University tuition is assessed on parental income upto the age of 25, and many parents are having to provide their children with considerable sums of money as a deposit for their first houses in order to provide them with independence. Many are having to rent, which does not provide the independence they deserve. When does a child become an independent adult? I think individuals should have the support from obtain from society the support their own sustainance. They should be able to help each other in this task. Society should enable individuals to support themselves without the need to be dependent on the state and others so much. I think that children have rights, but parents have a need to provide the best and this involves education. I think sex education should be reformed, to encompass the parenting of chilren as well as telling them how to procreate with seedy videos from such a young age. I think it is right to promote contraception for those precocious youths who like the thought of a pet baby, or just the sex, and that this is only part of the problem. I think that this should not stop after adolescence, as the following years also have their own demands from society. I think that in order for an individual to be a responsible member of society, society has to respect the individuals feelings and equip individuals accordingly. In essence, the individual is going to think, if I have to do this for society, what is society going to do for me. Without this principle, society is of no value, and civil decline follows. The free for all of individual selfishness will dominate the psyche, and it will be more a case of whatever the individual can swindle for itself. Democracy will favour the majority, but the minority should not be persecuted because if it.

Ah, but so cute.
I have 3 boys and cannot have more, I don't want more, my boys are intelligent and green.
They are currently working with us on our green project, which is being totally self sufficient in every way, bicycles rule.(youngest is 8). Our family motto:
Live life the best you can, enjoy it, and hurt nothing or anybody.
Our proudest achievement, our boys!

This all seems quite obvious - population growth equals increased carbon footprint. As we are in a state of population growth (globally) any attempt to reduce our carbon footprint will have to work quite hard simply to stand still! What interests me most is that none of the political parties has dared point out that green policy might, and perhaps should, equate to a population control policy. Which is why I believe green, carbon control policies should NEVER be "top of the agenda" - because such a policy would conflict with humanitarian aid to alleviate suffering in famines, to control disease such as malaria, and even to combat the African AIDs epidemic. Green policy must take, at best, second place.

Whilst there has to be some logical truth in the fact that our children are a part of the environmental problems of our world, it still does not give a clear cut answer to the realistic problem i.e. stop reproducing and we'll all be happy etc..
We are human and as such would rather prefer to continue exisitng. Whilst I am ashamed at the total amount of waste in this planet by the vast majority of the population, we can start to turn this around. The process is, I admit, too slow but here we are all the same.
I have a daughter on the way and am not ashamed of this in any way. To those who are annoyed by our "careless responsibilities" help cut the Carbon footprint and take a leaf out of the "Voluntary exinction human movement" book and help the planet:-) Lots of nice cliffs by the seaside - but please don't drive there as it'll raise the footprint!

When I had a vesectomy at a young-ish age I had to undergo counselling about whether I was content to live with any regrets later about never having children. To me such counselling should be to those who want to bring another consciousness into this world for too often selfish reasons.

Before anyone thinks I am a typical member of the "me" generation - let me explain. Children need the extended family, which has mostly disappeared.

Many years ago only the eldest son inherited the family property - and thus had the means to be married. With that inheritance went the responsibility of continuing the line. Further sons were initially the insurance policies - and they tended to remain unmarried. It was expected that they would work to boost the family resources in order to give their nephews, and nieces, a better survival rate. They also provided mentoring to the children where the parent would be too close, or too busy, with all their children.

People without children these days have time, and money, that is often used to resource the development of family, and friends', children. Gay friends with the time to make good careers seem to have a large number of godchildren attributed to them. Is this their friends altruistically sharing "the joys of children" - or a conscious calculation of the resource advantages?

Whichever it is - it is probably good for the human race as it lowers population growth, promotes a cohesive society and gives children a better chance of developing their potential.

Population is a huge issue. If we just look at the UK, it has shown itself to not be able to handle the massive population increases over the past ten years (breakdown in public services, overcrowding, crime, grime etc.), so it is not much of a leap to see that this will apply across the globe. We need population measures; in fact they are the only millennium development goal that would improve human life on earth. At present, we are carrying out policies which are just making things worse and turning most cities into festering slums. Not much of a legacy for poor Elsa to see when she grows up.

I have only one thing to say to those who are overly concerned about global overpopulation:

Why don't YOU leave?

(With acknowledgement to Charles M. Schultz, from whom I am unashamedly paraphrasing.)

Hi, I am Glenn and I appear on this episode of Ethical Man, and I represent both OPT and VHEMT.

May I first mention that those of us who believe in population control, do so for compassionate reasons, not because we hate humankind or children. We feel that the only way to "save the planet" is by human population reduction - of course, ethically. The only way this is going to happen is by reducing birthrates. This could prevent a lot of human suffering too in terms of resource wars and famines.

But what is failed to be mentioned by the blog, is the many other ways population is a problem. It's not just carbon emissions. It comes down to space. We already need so much land to live the way we do, with huge houses, infrastructure, public servies etc, intensive farming which is rapidly degrading soil to feed our numbers, habitat loss and extinctions of vital parts of the food chain and web of life due to our continuing expansion. The general populace are not going to voluntarily give up their excessive, consumer lifestyles, and with countries (esp. China and India) becoming richer, there's going to be many more people living that way. The Earth cannot cope.

Sustainable development needs sustainable numbers, and it pleases me to know there are lots of other people who do realise the problem we're facing. It's the next big debate now the politicians are finally waking up to environmental damage we're causing.

Whilst of course we should not make Justin and Bee feel guilty for bringing three beautiful children into this world, we really need to educate our youngsters about the future perils with population increase, globally! I wonder what Elsa will make of all this hype when she's older!

Glenn

Its a little pathetic, worrying about only your 3rd child.

When we become a Muslim society (in about 50 years time), and you are a in a minority, do you really think they will listen to your wimpering requests to stop having 5 or even 10 children per family? You'd better be careful then...

And if you're thinking that the state could somehow control numbers of children, well even China struggled to do that!

I wish I had some positive suggestions.

Mention was made of fossil fuels leading to the population explosion. I read somewhere that when oil was first pumped out of the ground there were about 1 billion people on the planet.

Since then, fossil fuel-derived chemicals (including agricultural fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides) have enabled the population to soar to over 6 billion.

The vast majority of these chemicals (which are now effectively ESSENTIAL to the survival of over 5/6 of our population!) cannot be made easily, or not at all, without continued supplies of fossil fuels.

The Peak Oil theory states that global oil production will eventually reach its maximum and then decline forever. Similarly with gas. For oil, some experts predict the peak will occur NEXT year (2008. yes - THAT soon!).

As the fossil fuel feedstocks for these essential chemicals rises steeply, so will the price of food. And soon the world will be unable to support 5/6 of the population. It's quite obvious then that with our current population (never mind predicted increases) we'll face MASSIVE competition for massively dwindling food resources. Wars and famines will then be inevitable and - I would strongly suggest - FAR worse than any seen before. It will make most Biblical-style apocalyptic visions seem insignificant.

So far, China is - to the best of my knowledge - the ONLY country far-sighted enough to impose restictions on reproduction.

The rest of the world will have to follow suit - and QUICKLY! - if we are to have "controlled prevention of life" rather than "catastrophic cessation of life".

I'm sure neither option is particularly attractive for anyone, but I know which situation I'd rather see the world in.

The 2008 Peak Oil theory may be wrong (I hope it is or else we may have no time to avoid the catastrophe scenario).

As for Elsa - Good luck to the little nipper! I feel she's going to need it.

I think Derek (comment no.36) is very much misled with his comments about Muslim society. When resources dwindle, which is happening already, there's going to be a global catastrophe, which the whole world needs to respond to. The majority of the most densely populated countries in the world are not Islamic. The majority of the countries with the highest birthrates are not Islamic. And it was only one generation ago that countries such as the UK had lots of familes of 5 to 10 children causing the exponential growth that has put us in this situation.

This blind xenophobia is outrageous. This is not about targeting any race, religion or country, it's a global problem.

There was a theory that wars spaced about 30 years apart would eliminate enough conscripts that a balance of population would ensue. It was also thought that the remaining population would become more law-abiding. So when we fight over water - the next most likely conflict - perhaps those who survive will be wiser. I doubt it!
Bird flu of course might kill off half the world's population and solve the population problem but leave the human race in the Dark Ages - again.

What a bunch of pointless hand-wringing. Have you people ever heard of self-respect?

Here's a clue: you having 3 children in a country whose birth rate is well below replacement rate isn't contributing anything to overpopulation. All that you're doing is slightly slowing the demographic death-spiral that white Europeans are now in.

You have my permission to start hand-wringing when you, and all of your friends, relatives, and co-workers have at least 4 children per couple.

One thing that can be guaranteed about a society that doesn't value itself enough to reproduce itself (i.e. most Western countries, including Britain) is that in the short term they will cease to be relevant, and in the longer term they will be overrun. You can guarantee that the people who are overrunning your country aren't wringing their hands about having too many children.

So enjoy your hand-wringing, while your government fills your country with migrants whose populations are growing at 15 times (source: the rate of the indigenous population.

One day you'll wake up and realise that you are a minority in your own country. You'd better start letting in lots of Indians; God knows the British aren't replacing themselves, so you'll need to let someone in who will have families and won't stand for Sharia law. That being the Hindus.

Technology and development are not the problem but the answer. As medical knowledge and education standards spreads to the 3rd world, the perceived need for large families will be removed, and the advantages in birth control made obvious - but we will still be left with a 'large' population of humans. Through advances in technology and the proper use of current fuels the potential damage to the atmosphere can be reduced. There is no need to take on anti-family stance! And no need to use the environment as an excuse to hide the vacuum in your lives by not having one, don't deny nature - you will come to regret it when you do get round to having one!

A response to Kimandsally (comment no.40).

It's not that our society doesn't value itself not to breed, it's that we're giving the children that we do bring into this world a better future, and respecting our fragile planet. This is not about race. The whole world has a problem and the whole world needs to address it's birthrate issues.

With regards to the migrant population coming into this country, who do you think YOU are? Go back far enough in time and you'll likely see that your ancestors migrated to this little island we reside upon. Then us 'white Europeans' started spreading out to the Americas, Southern Africa, Australia, NZ etc. and 'overrunning' them with disregard for the indigenous people. So before you start criticising any of our inward migrants, take a look at your own history and stop being so bigoted.

Personally, I am proud to live a global community, and think with it we have more chance of solving this problem.

Wow,Justin,it's great that you're so "hands on" about ethical issues,but don't you think we're suffering a bit from information overload about your lifestyle? Soon we'll know so much about you we'll be able to defraud your credit cards.I think we're getting the general picture,but spare us all the stuff about how many times you flush the lavatory etc.,please.

A Clue where the Population/Birth Rates will continue to rise - and the races responsible:-

Facts will have to be faced like them or not, the facts are that if the White Populations do not reproduce at a matching rate to those of the coloured races then the Whites WILL become extinct, unless of course the Coloured Races started to accept Total responsibility for their own numbers, numbers they cannot support - FACTs.

People can hide their heads in the sand, they can delude themselves, they can ignore it - doing any of them, means the inevitable extinction of the white races - full stop!

In the cae of the Muslim Birth Rates explosion globally. Democracy is their ideal and perfect weapon in the Islamisation of Western and None Islamic Nations.
Throughout European Countries their numbers on average increase double each decade. Introduce Turkey into the EU and Eurabia carries real significance! Just as Col Ghaddafi has pointed out - Eurabia without a shot being fired!

If anyone wants to object to this posts contents - say why and prove it's contents wrong!

The two reasons why we have all the environmental problems is that we have too many people wanting too higher standard of living. As the rich create more problems than the poor we should kill off the richest people until the CO2 concentration starts to fall.

Having surplus children is an unethical act. You have condemned your children to a life in a world with rapidly diminishing resources, with increasingly nasty and irrational neighbors to deal with. They face a crowded miserable impoverished future in a backwards muslim dominant society on an island without the resources to feed its population without food imports. I wish them luck. Malthus was not wrong, just premature. Once Peak Oil occurs unlimited population growth will not longer be sustainable.

The following are heading for supply shortages-
Fossil Fuels
Water
Nickel
Copper
Trees

The following are blunder factors-
The right to breed
Political Correctness.
Individuals Human-rights
Personal and national ambitions/greed
The expectation of ever continuing enhancement of lifestyle

The following are pushing the limits of wisdom-
Population divisions on religious grounds
Population divisions on economic grounds
Population divisions on political grounds
Population divisions on historical grounds
Population divisions on genetic grounds

Things to remember-
The human body was designed to last approx 40 years.(Hair, teeth, sight, hearing, knees/hips etc- all the stuff critical for survival).
The modern human race has never taken common-sense to be a reality
Human fetility lasts for twice as many generations as it did 50 years ago. So more generations are breeding whilst their `ancesters' are still alive.
Sciences and vanity are trying to cure death
Scientists are wanting to clone humans
Education has ceased trying to instill the ability to think rationally
E-writing is often so condensed as to be meaningless

Ok- so I`m a pessimist. But I do hope that Homo sapiens can finesse some future for itself.

I would just like to add that the Malthusian hypothesis that human population growth has been facilitated by fossil fuels has some merit. However, if it is due to the energy it provides, its absence would not herald such an apocalyptic famine. What this would most likely herald would be a new era. The nuclear era. The benefits of nuclear energy clearly outweigh the perils of famine and nuclear waste when managed properly. Renewable energies would also be able to supplement energy supplies. The main reason for this is due to the limiting factor being the abundance of water. Water for agriculture to provide food to life to avoid famine. Whilst we are so paranoid about an Iranian nuclear reactor, most of us are unaware that a nuclear reactor was constructed nearby in Soviet times. Built in Kazakhstan, it was decommissioned in 1999, but was a large operation that used the energy it generated for the purposes of water purification. Yes, the reactor produced thousands of gallons of fresh water from the Caspian Sea on an industrial magnitude, by using the nuclear powered heat that it generated. It was closed after the Cold War, mainly for economic reasons. Chemical fertilisers could also be produced by electrically powered industrial Haber-Bosch processes ultimately powered by nuclear powered electricity. Of course the ethics of nuclear power are another issue, as some challenge the notion of burying nuclear waste that is radioative for centuries, and potentially leaving a problem for future generations. There is also the general notion that this permits the production of Plutonium that can be used for nuclear warheads. The ethical problems arising from this relate largely to how the technology is applied, managed and utilised. And again large unprovable concerns, just like CO2 Global Warming, highly variable and prone to irrational conclusions. Economics must play their parts in the energy market. When oil gets past a critical level, it becomes economic to extract oil from tar sands such as in Canada, and coal is also incredibly cheap, its only downfall being that in order to reduce pollution, it has to be combusted in complex processes that are expensive to set up and operate. There are so many of these economic thresholds that make it appear fossil fuels are about to run out imminently. Oil companies make bids to extract oil from reserves on a projected basis for the amount that is economically extractable. A lot of it is not currently economic, but once the cheaply extractable reserves have been removed, then the more difficult reserves become preferable and the most economic. It's all a big game, with propaganda that puts prices up through the OPEC cartel. Such organisations and individuals can operate globally with venture capitalist strategies. In corrupt regimes, little of the trade reaches local people. Remember Saddam Hussein ? These strategies are employed by the most greedy power hungry of the world. Russian oil tycoons, Capitalist oil tycoons, Arabian sheikhs, Indian businessmen, Chinese communist party members, Socialist propaganda fascists. Not all, but they can all have alterior motives. Their objectives are the same, and ethics does not form part of their logic. Of course this not always the case, but its far too communistic than it justifiably should be. We might not have all our possessions burnt in the streets, and be beaten for objecting, but the stripping of individual liberty and ability to question is just as potent as the Marxists of the 19th and 20th centuries. It's just that many of us don't know what we're losing and to whom. In our naivety and ignorance, we think we are bettering others through trade, but in reality we are just lining the pockets of the already super rich. And what's worse is that these people, not content with world domination, have the best tax consultants and lawyers to swindle their way out of anything that could benefit the proletariat. These bourgeois don't do charity. If they do, it's just a PR stunt, an ethical propaganda drug. Money is what makes the world go round, and no-one should forget it. The best we can hope for is symbiotic win-win solution. These must predominate over zero-sum communistic strategies. But the economic framework can never be forgotten.

Apologies for the cynicism, but beware enslavement by debt. So unavoidable, but I doubt human nature has suddenly evolved an ethical super gene. The memes are getting better, but the desires aren't. Africa wasn't ravaged by famine as a consequence of ethics. It was burdened by inescapable debt. They couldn't buy their way out. Their lands were stolen from them by colonialists. Yes, a hijack can be beneficial, but the ethics rarely predominate. "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win", Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto. This then brings "Working men of all countries Unite !". This Unity then allows corruption to steal from the proletariat to provide for them. This ethical crime then goes to the bourgeois, who use it in their power games. We are paying the price for our ancestors ethical blunders. It's the game of life, and we're all victims of the ethical fascism. Our very breath is being stolen from us. It's just in our exhalations. It won't sound so ridiculous when we're indebted for breathing.

" I suspect this situation is prevalent in the majority of Indian and Chinese households. Dozens of people crammed into small houses living on the borderline of survival. In modern Britain, population is generally in decline, with only around 1.4 children per mother for the local population."

Ok, but having say 3 children grow up in a third world country is the same as one spoiled wasteful child in the west, so less children does not necessarily equate with less impact on the envirnment. Also having no children means more money to spend on leisure pursuits and material items which has just as much if not more impact on the world but in a different context.

I see the equation being quite simple.

Fewer people = fewer cars, less food, less energy. The grand total is less carbon.

Not only that; imagine we didn't reduce the population. As desertification increases due to global warming, that means less land surface area and water to live on by an increasing number of people. Cue war and famine.

There are now nearly 7 billion people on Earth. Only 50 years ago it was half that. We in the West require the resources of 2 or 3 Earths' in order to sustain us long-term. Imagine what will happen to those ever-shrinking resources when China and India (2bn people) start consuming like we do.

You can't blame the US for this. This problem must be solved by the developing countries, whose birth rates are astronomical.

I just hope Elsa never finds out that you asked this question!

As for 'saving the planet', I think humans are way too insignificant to destroy something that existed long before we did. If the dinosuars had pressure groups, they'd probably be saying exactly the same stuff - breed less, eat less palm fronds!!!

Being responsible is one thing, being alarmist is a completely different ball game.

The problem with the idea of Voluntary Human Extinction is that, is that those who have no children voluntarily eliminate themselves from the gene pool, this leaves behind a ressistent strain less suceptable to being marketed out of existence.

The real solution is for people like me who realise the population problem to stop over people from having children in order to make way for my own children.

The genetic influence on behaviour and personality is an unavoidable fact, made clear by numerouse studies of adopted children and seperated twins.

Thus the only solution to overpopulation is eugenics. We should sterilise all criminals, people with genetic deseases, low inteligence, and over disabilities, recipients of welfare, charity, forien aid, and imigrents.

Yes I know eugenics seems cruel, but that is just short term thinking in the long term the alternative is much worse.

But that said, peak oil was in 2005 and the rapid decline will soon come. Peak Uranium also seems to of ocured, with peak gas, and coal soon to follow. World grain production is already falling, with the rest being turned into car fuel. This means that the time has probably passed where overpopulation could be solved by sterilisation alone. Population reduction by more direct and violent means it seems has already become inevitable.

It is very seldom that any of the people tackle the real problem with the world, and why it is heading for disaster. The population growth needs to be reduced but nobody wants to say so.

Even the current population levels are unsustainable in the long run - non-renewables like oil will be used up without even erradicating poverty (oil is a source of chemicals, not just of energy, so it isn't as simple as using nuclear and renewables). Mines will run out eventually, etc. The only ethical solution is birth control - ideally a one-child policy in the poorest or most crowded countries (having a dozen kids when you can barely feed yourself is a crime against humanity plain and simple) and a two-children policy everywhere else, however this is pretty utopian. What the UK could do is cap welfare inducements to have children and condition aid to recipients that do something about population growth. However, responsability rests mainly with the developing world, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of births; only China has so far lived up to her responsabilities.

China faces the biggest challenges of any nation in the imminent future. It's pollution is impeding its ability to feed the nation. Water for irrigation is becoming so polluted, and this will mean fewer people can be fed. And its poor management of industrial Sulphur emissions is conveniently suffocating the innocent farmers who feed the nation. This is ethical fascism, and it needs to be addressed. Chineese agriculture needs to be valued. If ignored, famine will ensue. Chineese industrial development has been funded by over lenient bank loans and a fascist "aren't we doing well" oppression. The communist party and Shanghai sultans are persecuting it's proletariat. It's markets are only available to the communist party, and not Chineese proletariat or the rest of the world's open markets. If the proletariat don't get suffocated, they'll be adopting civil disorder and Marxist revolts. This has only been suppressed until now, but the dams will only hold for so long. It is not ethical to sustain a system where the Chineese proletariat are eternally persecuted generation after generation for the sake of the rest of the world. The long term solution is more complex than it may appear. Mechanisation of Chineese agriculture need to empower the proletariat to feed the nation. Pollution needs to be addressed, and not just CO2. If the Chineese authorities do what it looks like they are going to do based on the status quo, we had bettered stock up on all our consumer goods pretty pronto. We might actually get a manufacturing industry again, because the spectacle will make 9/11 look like an Antarctic War.

Hope we never have that bloke's horrible atypical middle class family inflicted on us again.

To talk seriously about population, the biggest limiting factor is educating women (though doesn't seemed to have worked with this awful family). So why is this not up front in any population discussion???
(Including the oh so clever Reith lectures??)

It's not all that crazy to believe that the God who made the universe also has a plan for it - a plan which involves filling the earth with people.

In fact I would go as far as to suggest that the nature of our concern for the planet proves we all believe in the existence of this God. Why if Ian is right about the universe do we care about it. Afterall if all the earth is, is a rock spining round a big star in a universe of lots of rocks spining round big stars then it has no more value than a can of coke. Which at the end of the day we're not that gutted when it's finished!

When a Christian recycles his empty can of coke at least he's being consistent with his world view!

Well according to Mr Milliband 'drastic cuts in carbon emmissions will have to be made in 'other areas' to keep us all flying.
The drastic cuts will have to include :-
Significant cuts in birthrate and immigration.
The imposition of massive cuts in road and rail transport.
Everyone to be in bed before dark with all lights and central heating turned off.
No more cooked meals.
Easy jet and Ryanair are to provide 拢1 tickets for single flights to the Mediterenean.
You think this is a joke. Are you sure? This is about the standard of proposal the Brain Dead politicians we have in the UK would make.

No disrespect to Justin and family, but just how representative are the
Rowlatt's? If national TFR is 1.71 what's the point of picking a
clearly well educated, atypical family, where it's already 3? Where are the figures which show that his family is at all representative? To put the problem in a nutshell, it isn't mere population growth that's the problem here, it's *differential* population growth, i.e. which sectors of our population are reproducing fastest and which the slowest. This can lead to a shift in average ability. The UK (and the rest of old Europe) has an aging indigenous population (i.e a low TFR), but which sectors of society are producing children at the highest rates, and what are the implications of this for future human capital (skills and IQ)? This is the stuff that government actuaries concern themselves with as it drives all sorts of services. Again, no disrespect to the Rowlatt's, but surely we're already awash with students of media studies and the arts (looking at HESA figures). This is something Paxman commented upon in the past (along with the media frequency of 'Marxists' , or perhaps
it was champagne socialists?).

National figures would seem to suggest that 'Ethical Man' just isn't representative, and if that is so, one must ask whether the 大象传媒 is being at all 'ethnical' when presenting images which whilst highly emotive and appealing, are statistically misleading? One should look to statistics, not salient images (regardless of how cute and affable they may be). We even had the silly tongue in cheek suggestion that one of the action groups might be thinking of culling babies! Whilst I have no doubt that women can hold down jobs and families (many have to), to what extent can they sustain *demanding* careers as well as families, and how does that very C20th problem impact upon differential fertility (and ultimately upon social responsibility, and I'm not just referring to 'carbon footprints')? We no longer have communities because most women are out at work - and there are many costs to this.

Politicians and broadcasters have to abandon their 'Lake Wobegon'
mentality and focus-group driven populism if they expect to be taken
seriously. That they won't is I suggest, why so few do take them
seriously anymore. They seem too busy chasing ratings. We have so much pitched at the dumbed down, average person, that we now have to endure Kafkaesque/Orwellian slogans like *all* children being educated to *above average* proficiency levels in numeracy and literacy. Either large numbers of political advisors and media folk skipped statistics and biology, or something has gone terribly wrong.

Along with 'Ethical Man' we had weeks of nonsense about the plight of the scientifically illiterate - yet they seem to dominate the highly verbal media (as do women these days) - might there be a connection?

Passing the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the RRAA, and opening
our borders to anyone in (the seemingly ever expanding) EU, whilst
offering asylum to all eager to flee whatever misfortunes are the
consequence of dysgenic fertility in their own countries, may seem
humanitarian, but another way of looking at it is in terms of
demographic warfare, poor government, or worse, wilful sedition. In time, this country must go the same way as the third world countries which we accept refugees from, as nobody will pay for a welfare state which provides for hoards of free-loaders from elsewhere who clearly
have little concern for this culture (merely what they can take from
it).

Furthermore, how can even a downsized Home Office 'skills test' migrants if borders are not patrolled? And even if they were patrolled, how could entry be refused given current EU rules? If we were fully signed up to
the EU constitution, surely this would be even harder still?

Realistically, all we can do is accept that there will continue to be disproportionately higher fecundity amongst the lower ability segments of society as a consequence of more (especially able) females (of whatever race) spending progressively more of their potentially reproductive years pursuing the trappings of the good life (look at the average age of first births).

I don't see how any of what's being planned today can help improve a)
the anthropogenic contribution to global warming, b) the economy, c)
educability and the crime rate or d) cultural stability. Perhaps
Newsnight could get a few politicians on to tell us, instead of providing these incessantly sterile 'debates'? Most of us can't do much about this, but that's what we elect governments for surely?. Sadly, all they seem to do is tell us that it's best left to 'market forces', which, as I see it, effectively amounts to them doing nothing and thereby making matters worse.

To top it all, even though we don't seem to have any answers, there are
some amongst us who seem determined to export this formula to other
cultures allegedly for their own good (or is it so some powers in the
Middle East retain hegemony?). Is it any wonder that some are violently
opposing such arrogant imperialism?

Glenn, this is not a 'global problem' except in a trivial sense. Have a closer look at projected population growth for London - 99% of it over the next 30 years is going to be down to 'BME' groups. In London, 75% of the boroughs are already close to 50% non-White British (non white British includes other European) at 11 years of age. Then take a look at population growth for Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria since 1950, and run each decade's population against that of the UK. They've trippled, why hasn't the UK?

The problem to worry about is this:

a) National TFR is highly negatively correlated with IQ.

b) Mean IQ is highly positively correlated with GDP.

c) Heritability of IQ is estimated (from twin studies) to be as high as 0.77.

d) IQ and criminality is negatively correlated (as is age and criminality).

e) At the population level, IQ drives SES rather than the reverse (see c).

Far from being 'xenophobic' to point out the potentially dire consequences of such unmanaged *differential* fertility and migration, it's misleading and irresponsible not to.

A 鈥楲ogan鈥檚 Run鈥� society? Maybe. I am 61 with failing lungs that are unlikely to get me past 70. Do I wish I could live forever? No. My childhood was in the 50s, when the UK was safe and secure and we all felt confident and knew where we stood. Dad went to work and Mother stayed at home to care for and teach us. Policemen were friendly figures of authority who deserved, and got, our respect. Watching the rise of 鈥榥ew technology鈥� has been interesting and sometimes challenging, I am not being an old fogey that rejects it. What I DO reject is the rise of lawlessness, internationalism, super-consumerism and fundamentalist religions. Selfishness and ill manners, lying politicians and cheating businessmen all distress me. When I think of what it will be like in only another 20 years or so I simply don鈥檛 want to be a part of it, I was formed too long ago to accept it. In a few more years time I shall have to go, and I won鈥檛 shed a tear about it. My world will have gone and it will only be right for me to go with it. I鈥檓 appy to leave commerce in the hands of the 鈥楢pprentices鈥� and the ecology in the hands of the international loggers 鈥� they deserve each other. Don鈥檛 be greedy and wish for more time here 鈥� you probably won鈥檛 enjoy it.

Now that you have her the best you could do would be to raise her as a Green Vegan.
It is not the size of the population that is the problem but the size of the population in relation to the resources available. If a small population cares to waste its resources it could destroy the planet much more quickly than a larger population who actively protect what they have.

to lionel tiger - comment 49

To think that the world can somehow get by on nuclear power or any other source after peak oil arrives is a little bit naive. If we are going to do this, it needs to be done now. This begs another question - is it feasible to build another 5000-10000 nuclear reactors to power the worlds homes when uranium itself is soon going to be scarce. With that many reactors we would have maybe 15-20 years worth of power, same thing with coal, these are also non renewable resources. We could take the uranium and convert it to plutonium which would last alot longer, but in our world, this would surely be suicide. Once peak oil hits there will be mass shortages of food, the global economy will colapse and the global population growth will cease to exist, we will decline back to the numbers that the natural earth can sustain.

I am sure Elsa could grow up to be a brilliant scientist/environmentalist and contribute to solving the issue......

That said, fertility rates are declining all across the developing world....nature (human nature) is already finding a natural solution

dw

How can unmanaged immigration and (possibly) Third World levels of fecundity, amount to a 'solution'?

What's going to curb S Asian and African TFRs here if they are, relative to our current cultural demands, basically disporportionately uneducable (see DfES results by ethnic groups).

Whilst there is *some* evidence of declining TFRs in second and third generation Bangladeshi, Pakistani and African British, *if* educability has reached a plateau, and they sustain *relatively* high levels of birth and unemployment (and low levels of contribution to the economy per capita, partially through sending funds back home etc), how can this portend well if at the same time indiginous national TFR (particualrly amongst the better educated) is progresively falling further and further below replacement level?

As I see it, this doesn't bode well for those who are attracted to the UK or for the rest of us. Just look at Calais on last night's Newsnight. Then look at the news about disenchanted doctors and how projections are for at least some NHS services not being free at the point of deivery within a decade. Our public services are already under threat everywhere (and just ask inner city teachers about their job satisfaction and pressures). It's not just because these 'free' services as so expensive.

This has little to do with race or xenophobia, but a lot to do with basic economics, demographics and what makes welfare states viable.

What's natural is entropy (apathy), and what we seem to be witnessing is political abrogation and more than a little subversion by self-interested internationalist free-marketeers. Who are the real terrorists?

'Permanent revolution' may seem fine when one's young, but as one gets older and needs the help of others, it begins to look rather different. That's why, in the past, many tried to have large families as insurance for their old age. The way things are now going, why *should* any of the (traditionally high TFR) 'immigrant' groups abandon their extended family cultures and assimilate to our secular ways? Would you?

This is something which Gordon Brown (and his chums like David Miliband etc) need to be held to account for I suggest. We should demand that they demonstrate that they have control over these matters, for the sake of *all* of our long term interests.

The general concensus is that conventional oil has already peaked, I live in Canada in a city that thrives on oil. The tar sands are about 4 hours from here, yes it is true that there is a lot of heavy oil up here (tar sands) but the problem with heavy oil is it is almost not worth extracting because of the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is a mere 1.5:1 - miniscule really when compared to conventional oil which has an EROEI of 30:1. If we werent running low on oil we wouldnt be extracting it from places that it is hard to get. The oil shale in the US has a negative EROEI so it is a waste of oil trying to get oil out of the shale and geologists feel that it will be at least 20 years before they see a positive EROEI and the only way that they will have the money and technological advances to make it profitable will be if the current oil supply continues to grow...highly unlikely. Once peak oil hits, oil dependent nations, mostly all of them, will go into depression, there will be no money for furthuring technology. Just imagine the lights and power going out and never coming back on. All cars will be rendered useless, no steady food supply to grocery stores which will eventually shut down. We will revert to a barter society where it is every man for himself and there will be no first response or rescues going on, once this occurs there will be mass casualties, the first to go will be the elders, they cannot live without the support of others and their medication. Medication will cease to exist, it will go back to herbal remidies and so forth. Think about all of the people live in metropolitan areas, condos, apartments lets take New York City for example. Roughly 26 million people living within an area that can sustain maybe 1% of that population, without food deliveries, where are these people going to get their food and water. Think about how many people would die in that situation. And it wouldnt be as easy as hopping in your car and driving somewhere else, by that time, its too late. What people have to understand is that we definetly are on an unsustainable course, and have been since the discovery of oil in 1856. There will be no substitute for petroleum once we run out. All of these new energy sources are mostly a scam - the one that sickens me the most and is being pushed the most by the US and Canadian Federal governments is Ethanol. Ethanol is not a renewable energy source, ethanol like shale oil, has a negative EROEI, this means that we burn more energy creating the ethanol than the finished product has in it. It take 110 000 BTU's to create a gallon of ethanol, that gallon of ethanol only contains 77000 BTU's. Thats not to mention the fact that to drive one car on E85 for one year at an average of 16000 km's per year would require 11 acres of corn (HOLY POOP). Take the 200 Million autos in the US and convert that number... Thats 2.4 billion acres of corn needed to operate just the US's domestic need for the auto... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. All in all we all need to realize that in reality, every planet in this entire universe has 1 chance.. one shot at glory, after that, were screwed for millions of years to come. The age of cheap abundant energy is over - Welcome to the POST INDUSTRIAL STONE AGE!

Sex is fun - most of the time anyway.
Sex makes babies a lot of the time. So let's take the fun out of sex. Treat it like say income tax. Sheer necessity! (A silly question deserves a silly answer. So don't ask silly questions. QED)
When the world is suitably decimated we may then put the fun back!. It boils down to switching fun on and off. Surely our bright technicians could design such a circut.
Trouble is when is fun not fun. Of course! Fix it all with a teasmaid! Now why didn't I think of that. Now what about British summer time ... ah the cat can't read! Well it was just an idea. Damn it let's have fun.

"In their vision it will not be famine that will visit death upon the human race. No. They believe we鈥檒l be destroyed by the very thing that wrong-footed old Thomas鈥� arguments - fossil fuels - and the global warming they are bringing."

Surely this isn't all they believe, Justin??? Please, PLEASE understand that this is only part of the problem, and possibly the lesser part at that. How can you be so blinkered as to see the above yet fail to spot the looming danger from the fact that the fossil fuels are running out anyway?

The rapidly diminishing fossil fuel resources (worldwide) MAY (just possibly) help to save us from the cataclysm threatened by global warming gases by unleashing less of them. But what then? As you point out in your article, the only way that humanity managed (for 2 centuries) to buck the calamity predicted by Malthus was by the use of absurd amounts of fossil fuels to change the basic parameters of the world model on which his predictions were based.

Without that level of resource consumption we will be back to square 1 - utterly unable to support the population level that we've now grown to. Just like with all animal populations that outstrip their resource base, the only answer is a population crash to bring them back into balance. And, unless we suddenly become civilised enough to do something about it ourselves (like organising alternative, sustainable energy supplies PDQ) that crash will come, as with all non-sentient species, courtesy of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse.

Read any biology textbook that considers population studies - and, as our friends across the pond would say, "Go figure".

I am a 20 year old with, I would say, a fair understanding of green and ethical issues. I am completely baffled by some of the above posts, although my outlook may be simplistic. I have wanted to have children of my own for several years now but will obviously wait until after university, job etc. This to me, is a completely natural and normal urge and when I ahve children, I will raise them to be green too.

The challenge that we, the government and the media should undertake is to educate the public about the seriousness of these issues, to actually change policies instead of just talking about the issues and to impose more tax on environment damaging products. Surely this is more likely to benefit the planet-engaging EVERYONE in the problem and solution rather than targeting those who choose to have a family?