There are too many people plain and simple.

So why meep and whine when terrorists kill a few?

Oh, we don't really care when that happens, we're just looking for an excuse to torture people.

Right now the problem is there are too many North Americans. Soon enough the problem will be too many Asians. Those with the most wealth consume the resources most.

Watch Jim as he oils his boobs just for you.

There's too many RATS!

CAUTION: WALL OF BANALITY AHEAD.

Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet, warns John Feeney. In this week's Green Room, he calls on the environmental movement to stop running scared of this controversial topic.

It's the great taboo of environmentalism: the size and growth of the human population.

It has a profound impact on all life on Earth, yet for decades it has been conspicuously absent from public debate.

Most natural scientists agree our growing numbers and our unchecked impact on the natural environment move us inexorably toward global calamities of unthinkable severity.

They agree the need to address population has become desperate.

Yet many environmentalists avoid the subject, a few objecting strongly to any focus on our numbers.

Some activists insist acting to influence population growth infringes on human rights; they maintain that it is best to leave the problem alone.

Let's dispense with this confused notion right now.

Yes, there have been past abuses in the name of 'population control'.

There have been abuses of health care and education too, but the idea of reacting by abandoning any of these causes is absurd.

We can learn from past abuses, reducing the likelihood of fresh problems arising in the future.

In fact, those working on population issues have done so. Today, they recognise that the methods with the best track records of reducing population growth are, by their nature, respectful and promoting of human rights.

They include educating girls and women in developing countries to help empower them.

This is achieved by providing more options, using media strategies to make them aware of alternatives regarding family sizes and family planning.

Those who oppose talking about the world's population are obstructing the further provision of such services and resources.

Last chance saloon

Fundamentally, we need to ask what is the greater threat to human welfare: the possibility that humane efforts to address population growth might be abused, or our ongoing failure to act to prevent hundreds of millions, even billions, dying as a result of global ecological collapse?

It's no far fetched possibility. Increasingly, environmental scientists insist we have overshot the Earth's carrying capacity.

I believe they are right; the proof is everywhere. Our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot.

Overshoot, we know, is followed by population decline. As we have learned form other species, this manifests itself initially with a crash.

For humanity, this portends a potential cataclysm exceeding anything in our history.

Our chance to avert such an outcome depends on our ability to address our numbers before nature reduces them for us.

There's no other way out. Merely reducing per capita consumption, for instance, won't do it.

After all, per capita consumption levels multiply with population size to determine our total resource consumption.

Just look at the data from the Global Footprint Network group. They estimate that we'll remain in overshoot unless we also address population.

Solutions do not spring from silence. We must bring population back to the centre of public discussion.

We need to break through the taboo to encourage not just a few voices but all those with relevant expertise to speak out on the subject loudly and often.

Recently I wondered what would happen if all the scientists - and everyone else considered a scholar of the population issue - spoke out all at once.

Would it help to weaken the taboo now shackling the subject, pushing it closer to centre stage?

Would it bring the matter enough attention to begin generating new or more widespread solutions?

Might it prompt a deeper examination of our ecological plight?

The Global Population Speak Out campaign has brought together over 100 voices from 19 countries, all pledging to speak out publicly on the population issue throughout the month of February, 2009.

Many now recognise the urgency with which we need to halt the human-caused degradation of Earth's natural environment.

Can we break down a taboo that has for years blocked the path toward that goal?

Dr John Feeney is an environmental writer based in Boulder, Colorado, US

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Do you agree with John Feeney? Is population growth a taboo topic among environmentalists? Without addressing the issue, will it be impossible to achieve sustainability? Or is resource consumption, rather than the number of people, the real underlying problem?

My gosh, yet another crises which demands that I give up more liberty? The hits just keep on coming. Scott Fox,

Anyone supporting this idea should consider joining Optimum Population Trust, and supporting charities like IPPF and Marie Stopes International Roger Plenty, Stroud

I am utterly shocked by some peoples comments proposing a drastic human population reduction as the solution for problems that mostly exist in parts of the world they have never seen or cared for. What about resource mismanagement? What about the fact that we have today the technology to feed and raise the quality of life of 2nd and 3rd world countries thus diminishing the birth rate drastically to levels similar to those of developped countries? And this 'Something needs to be done urgently before millions starve.' AH! I almost ripped my eyes out. How about the millions that die already of starvation YEARLY in most second and third world countries? Do you people even know what you're talking about? Go read books ffs. Human overpopulation is a symptom and most of you don't want to adress the causes. Mathieu Funkle, Canada

I've been wondering about this particular 'elephant in the room' for a while. Population increasing logarithmically and infinite growth is not possible so there is going to be a serious problem at some point, probably now. My wife and I have agreed it would be increadibly irrisponsible to add to the worlds already outrageous population level although it has always been our disire to have children, not that it will matter. However necessary it may be, population will never be controlled by human will, only by war, disease, and famine. If you doubt me ask yourself this question, 'Am I willing to have no children in order to actually address this problem, or am I a hypocrite?' If you don't think population is at the center of all our problems here on earth, your wrong. Think about it. Seth Brodie, California, USA

Perhaps we should move our reference to another species. Bees. In a summer hive, if there is enough food, there are 50,000 bees. After a cold, bitter winter, my hive has 10,000. Dead bees litter the entrance. If I put too many hives in a area with insufficient food then the bees become weak. In a cold winter mites and fungal disease further weaken the hive. More bees die. In spring I have an empty hive. So we have a choice. Intelligent design or natural selection. In this discussion, the religious crowd appear to be heading for natural selection. Bernard Newland, Portland, Oregon, USA

It is very unfortunate that the basically racist notion that population increase is responsible for most problems on earth is making a come back. The economy is expanding many many times faster than the population - economic growth poses a far greater threat than population growth. As long as the rich consume wastefully, they have no moral right to preach to the poor to reduce population!

In any case, as long as we dont reduce consumption, reducing population wont help. To understand why, imagine a garden with 99 cacti and 1 lotus plant in a pond - most of the water requirements of this garden arises from the consumption of the lotus - no matter how many cactus you eliminate, the total consumption is not going to change till the lotus is trained to live on less water - the same holds for the world. No matter how many less poor Indian or poor Chinese or poor African we have, it is not going to change the total CO2 emmision or energy consumption till people of USA and to a slightly lesser extent Europe (and the rich in the poor counties too) revise their life-styles and consumption patterns. Moony Shen, Marseille, France

Overpopulation has been a taboo subject, but needs to be addressed. The carrying capacity of the Earth has been exceeded and the human population will lessen with time. We have no choice concerning this. The only choice we have is to either let things go as they are now and face horrible famines the world has never seen before, with accompanying wars, mass migrations, etc. Alternatively, we can control our population worldwide and reduce our numbers via family planning. The record of our species doesn't look encouraging. Humans, like most species, will simply use all resources available to increase in numbers until the resources are gone and starvation and disease lower the population density. I hope this will not be the mechanism by which our numbers are reduced. Rodney, Baltimore USA

A huge thank you for finally bringing this to a mass audiance! When ever I mention over population in conversation I get shouted down by women screaming 'It's my RIGHT to have a child!' It's no one's right to have a child. It's a natural process. I have chosen not to have them because I will not be a hypocrit but we are doomed it we do not do something to limit the future population. I don't mean in a Nazi superior race way but in a senseable we must do this or we will drive ourselves to extintion way. Susan, London UK

I don't think human population is going 'off-hand'. Nature is a feedback machine. Whatever we input, we get the proportionate output. It is in the very 'nature' of nature to survive itself. If something in its machinery is detrimental (like the human population burst), it will find an alternate by itself. We, on the other hand feel irrational enough not to be guilty on our tampering, should just accept our rewards (diseases, natural disasters, etc.) It is the self realization that plays a crucial role. But no human have any control on his fellows. Let us just be the way we believe to be right, and accept silently, the rewards.. God bless you all.. Amen.. Ahamed, Chennai, India

Surely it's quite natural for the population of man to fluctuate according to environmental conditions. This is what happens to all species.

If I were to try to set goals for mankind I don't suppose that 'having the maximum number of people' would be one of them. As long as mankind survives, is there a problem?

I'm not sure this is an issue at all. Jim, Herefordshire

This is most definately an issue that needs to be discussed. Women (and some men) need to realise that actually no, they do not have some almighty 'right' to have children. Just last week a woman in the USA gave birth to octuplets, even though she already had six other children. This did not happen naturally, but through that wonder of modern medicine, IVF.

My fianc and I would of course love to have children through the usual means, but we have already decided that if nature denies us that option then we will adopt, period. There is much we can offer a child, and many children out there to whom we could offer it. Raising a family is about more than mere genetics, it is about passing on standards and ideals, and the above might be a good one to start with. Steven, Manchester, UK

Deep space is deep enough for all of us, why not go there? Pieter Vermeersch, Dendermonde, Belgium

Absolutely right. We MUST control our population. It's a no brainer. If we value human life, if we want quality of life, we cannot breed in plague proportions. And why is it that those who exercise restraint are always the ones asked to bail out peoples who don't? Russell Hicks, Caterham, UK

With all due respect, John Feeney's view is hypocritical.

Population is in decline in many parts of the western world like France, Germany and Japan.

How can a western thinker lecture the world on population and environment when

a) The population in many western societies is in dangerous decline,

b) Western populations are buoyed by immigration from other societies, and

c) Western societies are the biggest consumers of resources and manufactured products in this world. (Products that are sourced globally I might add).

Sadly, the developed world has never known wealth of the masses like the West has. Global poverty has never been eradicated. The placing of population and environment on the global agenda is clearly a western agenda prompted in part by the preeminent rise of emerging economies like China and India whose resultant potential for consumption the West fears.

Isn't it time for the West to admit that it is underestimating the need for procreation within its own borders and over estimating the consumption of peoples in the developing world?

Isn't it time the West was careful who it lectured to? Yehuda Newman, Modiin, Israel

Taking per capita CO2 emmissions, per capita water or energy comsumption or any similar index, a person in such countries like USA, UK or Autralia has a negative impact on the environment 10 to 20 times that of a Haitian, an Ethiopian or an Indonesian. Furthermore, much of the deforestation in third world countries is carried out to meet the the demand of rich countries for such commodities like meat, soya and palm oil. Carlos Veloso, Braslia, Brazil

For anyone who does not understand the validity of John Feeney's concern, try conducting this simple experiment at home or in the lab...

Ingredients:

1.) Petri dish

2.) Warm water/nutrient mix

3.) Bacteria

Process:

1.) Pour the water/nutrient mix into petri dish.

2.) Introduce a small sample of bacteria on the dish.

3.) Wait

4.) Behold the brilliant explosion of life

5.) Behold the fast apocalypse

The bacteria have 3 main problems:

First they are greedy. They do not save any resources for the future and they consume as much as possible to benefit in the short run.

Second, they have no sustainable resources. As they consume they deplete, until there is nothing left.

Third, there are no restraints on reproduction. In a finite space, when each bacteria reproduces to its fullest capacity and there are no natural predators, the population will naturally implode on itself. In a sense the bacteria become their own worst enemy.

We are only different from the bacteria in the petri dish in that we have an ability to make predictions based on observed patterns in the natural world. If we are to survive, we must learn how to balance our space, resources, population and waste in the small petri- dish-of-a-planet we call Earth. Matt, Stockholm, Sweden

This article forgets to mention that overpopulation is only a problem in developing countries. Increasing wealth, better education, family planning and women's rights are all indispensable measures that will 'naturally' lower natality.

All these measures are, in a large proportion, the role of the government. Unfortunately, as we all know, that is the weak point of all developing countries.

So let us concentrate on our own problems, namely a natality rate that is too low and needs to be stimulated by correct welfare measures to help parents be able to lead an active life as well as a responsable parenthood. Dimitri M., Switzerland

There is no overpopulation 'problem', except in the eyes of eugenicists and the dominant elite who control the media. Stop insulting our intelligence with this malthusian rubbish. Climate change is a fraud based on junk science to push more taxes on the people. thought_criminal,

Overpopulation is a problem, the solution however is not to tell people how many children they are allowed, this sounds far too dictatoral. But should governments offer incentives to those with none or fewer children... Kenny Mack, Aberdeen, UK

Sure, increasing population is a burdon on natural resources -but it could also be seen as providing a larger intellectual base to solve such problems as well. However, the evidence seems to suggest that the richer people get the less children they wish to have. So perhaps it would be better to look at population more productively than just as passive consumers or a burden on recources.

What seems to get forgotten isthe effect of Malthus -who used the population argument to support rapacious capitalism. Something which is very relevant today. trevor batten, Manila.ph

OF COURSE we need population control! and right now. For centuries we have culled excess population through war, famine and disease. Does anyone those methods serve human rights? Judith Stainsby, Port Moody, BC, Canada

Population is the major environmental issue and something does need to be done to create awareness of a woman's right to not have children regardless of what their society thinks.

There needs to be a male contraception injection to compliment the oral contraception pill- it's got to be reliable, it's got to be cheap and it's got to be used.

We need to overcome this insane need to reproduce when there are plenty of us and we need to overcome the squirmishness about abortion.

Unfortunately, I've just listed the reasons that such an approach will never be taken. Tracy, Napier, New Zealand

Admirable as it is to promote woman's procreative rights, family planning choices etc around the world, it will have little effect as long as religious and communal authorities continue to press women into childbearing roles. Reproducing is almost an obsession in some parts of the world, and the mere suggestion that you don't want children is treated with horror/ suspicion. Cultural barriers need to be broken, which requires patience and understanding; both in short supply globally. Scientists need to cross the bridge to religious leaders and start a dialogue. Matthew Adams, Cairo

I agree. We had lots of discussion about over-population till the early 1970's then all went silent. We know it is worse now not better. The idea was to deal with it through education. Obviously that alone was not enough. China, to its credit bit the bullet and acted, but so far, other countries who cannot support their populations have not responded with adequate solutions. No child should feel unwanted or have to starve because of ignorance or lack of legislation. While China imposed a hard thing on the families by its one child law, every child there is wanted and cherished and well provided for. It is not a perfect solution but nothing is. Definately no person should have more children than they can afford to support, however, the trouble with this is, situations change. People loose jobs. People get divorced. Education and talking about it is an important step but other measures are required. I don't know what could be done but there needs to be dialog. Pam W, Brisbane, Australia.

The less the humans on Earth, the better, Definitely. This is not only pro environment and pro natural habitats, but also the only long term sustenance model. And wars too are mainly over resources right? We all need to learn to use less... Vinay Hinduja, India

The article barely scrapes the subject. To begin a discussion it should attempt at least a short analysis of the problem. Where are the problem areas, why, who is doing something and what. Just stating 'there is a problem' isn't worth much if you don't suggest any solutions. Yen M. , Kuching, Malaysia

Human beings are a wonderful resource. The demographic transition model shows improving opportunities and reducing income inequality naturally reduces birth rates. Human beings are not the problem, they are the solution.

Perhaps Dr Feeney would be better to actually look at the statistics rather than having a wild guess. Do they hand out doctorates for linear thinking in the USA? Richard Gilby, Tequisquiapan, Mexico

Being from and living in a developing country, I have had close contact with this world's issue. I have spoken with women with low income whom become pregnant and most of them respond it happens not because they don't acknowledge the diverse birth control methods, but because their partner with a 'macho' attitude makes them have the baby, making them feel guilty if they don't want to end up pregnant, as though they were saying with such action they do not love the man. These ladies, feel guilty and do not want to loose their man, ending up in many cases pregnant. Sadly, most of the men 'magically' forget what they have said and disappear, taking zero responsibility of the new creature they have helped create. Most of these children repeat their parents' footsteps, getting caught in the vicious cycle.

Seeing so many children brought into the world and so many parents with already too many children to care for, it makes me wonder if I should even have a child of my own, or simply adopt to give a better life to a child already born. What is the point if bringing in more lives on this planet if they will not be able to enjoy the beauty of it?

I feel very strongly that something does need to change, change which must be drastic to have a real impact. Though, what can be done? What shall we do? What will happen with all these children and future leaders of the world? Annie, Bogot, Colombia

It is not rocket science to calculate that a person today consumes 1000% more energy than his/her counterpart of 100 years ago. The world CANNOT sustain present levels of population growth, the result is simple, end of the world as we know it. Where is all the food and water coming from to feed exponential population growth? Wind turbines and riding a bike to work are not the answers. Religous arguments against contraception should be dismissed immediately as they have no place in an educated civilised society T.Nicholson, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Here in India, soon to be the world's most populous country, perceptions of population have changed significantly in the last few decades. In the 60's and 70's overpopulation was acknowledged as one of the country's most significant problems and there were several efforts to curb growth. One of these efforts, forced/coerced sterilization, during Indira Gandhi's Emergency years, clearly went too far, and thus undermined future population control initiatives.

Then, in the 90's as the economy took off and liberalization took hold, a number of influential people began to speak of India's burgeoning masses as an advantage rather than a hindrance. One billion people, they said, would transform this country into a strong and developed nation. Even today many academics and journalists talk about India's 'demographic advantage'. At at the age of 27, I am already within the older half of the population.

What most people who got caught up in the 'one billion strong' hysteria of the last 15 years did not realize is that today's boom usually turns out to be tomorrow's bust. We're seeing one today with the global economy, and the economic cycle is usually short - measurable in years. With populations, it takes generations for effects to be felt. When India's half-a-billion under-25's become old, the whole country may just unravel.

Along with one billion people, we also have hundreds of gods here in India. We will need every single one of them when the population bomb explodes. Sid Lahiri, Bombay, India

Everyone seems to be in agreement that population reduction is necessary but with religious objections to sensible birth control measures we'll probably head towards the Apocalypse Predicted in certain holy books. Ken Balfour, Bangkok

Yes, finally someone has HIT this BIG nail, smack right on its head. Political leaders and economists never speak of over-population because of their short sighted vision & approach. Environmentalists are too concerned by over consumption in West to address this vital issue. Thanks to John for bringing the issue for hopefully addressing it.

Sid, Delhi, India

Instead of culling and forced sterilisation, would it not be better to limit the per capita amount of world's resources available to the developed and highly industrialised nations? I think this line of thought is part of an effort to lay the blame on poor countries, which, although overpopulated, still consume far less than the West and somehow manage to live on what they have. This is not true of North America and Europe.

Also, it seems to me that all those who moan about the Earth being overcrowded believe THEY are somehow special; it is always someone else who should be subjected to these insane measures.

And another thing; if bureaucrats are allowed to interfere with what is given to us by nature, it will not be long before the idea of killing surplus population pops up. And then what? So, will all those worried about overpopulation please commit suicide and help save the environment by setting an example, instead of hypocritically denying others of what they take for granted? Milos Milosev, Belgrade, Serbia

Overpopulated? BAN Alcohol and the problem will solve itself Alan Berger, Sandhurst

At last!

We see the Elephant!

It is blindingly obvious that we must control population growth. The humman race is the first biological system with the ability to control its own reproductive rate. All biolgoical empires rise and fall again as they outstrip their food/water/energy supplies. We, humans, have survived by increasing use of technology to overcome natural shortages, but at the price of massive destruction of the environment of the planet. Inevitably as population grows we will come to a point where we have outstripped our resources and the population will then die back as starvation and drought becomes the norm. Sounds apocalyptic but it is the inevitability of exponential population growth. (think about an (empty) African termite mound per example)

Sustainability should mean a stable population, each member with an adequate standard of living, on a planet that has not been stripped bare. (Whales, Tuna, Cod. Water in the Jordan River, Amazonian rain forests, habitat for the other species with whom we share this planet: all of these are rapidly disappearing!.)

I'm sorry Tracy from Toronto, but fundamentally I completely disagree with you. Yes the west does use a disproportionate amount of resources, but population excess is a planetary problem. Russell M, Blackpool

i've often pondered this topic myself, and usually come to the conclusion that human rights and our natural compulsion to help our fellow man might someday be our undoing. for example no matter how unsustainably food is grown in africa we keep sending food aid, even suggesting not doing so would result in a huge uproar, condemning those people to death, so we send food to maintain that population. the australian nobel laureate howard florey, whose work enabled penicillin to be produced in large quatities expressed his concern about the rise in population resulting from improved healthcare. i have to agree with him, and add that food aid also seems to maintain excessive populations. Ben Jarvis, Okayama, Japan

I quite agree with Mr.Feeney and its been my pet peeve for some time. If you look at it in economic terms too, for a small island like Jamaica, the more slices the pie has to be sliced, the smaller the slices. So, we need to manage population growth as part of any integrated economic or ecological plan. The greatest enemy of conservation is poverty, and where there is uncontrolled population growth, all manner of problems, social as well as environmental, break out. We are ignoring this basic underlying threat to our fragile planet to our peril. This matter needs to be raised at the highest policymaking level on a worldwide basis, and it wont be easy, but then nobody said saving the planet (from ourselves in this case) was going to be.

Karl Aiken. karl Aiken, Kingston, Jamaica

While I do believe that the global population should be responsibly and respectfully reduced I am quite upset at the one sided approach to all this.

While it may be true that it is the developing nations that have the most rapid population growth, it is undoubtedly the people in the developed nations that have the most impact in terms of environmental damage, consumption of finite resources and pollution.

What is the point in telling a couple in a poor Asian or African country or anywhere for that matter, to have less children when ten of their children will not come close to using the amount of resources as two children born in North America or Europe. Reducing population growth is meaningless if nothing is done to change the lifestyle of excess. Tony, Cayo, Belize

Any attempt to discuss this topic tends to be squelched by zealously politically correct retorts. But environmental protection depends on our addressing these issues. Further, I find it remarkable, in view of the numbers on human population growth, that many governments still give subsidies for childbirth, tax breaks for parents, and comparatively punitive taxation for the single and non-parents. We need to shift to an economic and social model of sustainability and population growth is not in this vein. Also, it is surprising that educated people continue to have sometimes 3 or more children. In order to keep the wild, natural places of our world safe, we need to reduce our numbers or at the very least stop increasing them. In view of our current troubles with nature, I'm tired of hearing parents with the attitude that their child comes first, regardless of anyone else's need - and they seem to abound in the past 15 years. Lisa, American in Hong Kong

While I don't disagree that many environmentalists avoid discussing population, I do think John Feeney oversimplifies the interactions between consumption and population. The Ecological Footprint data Feeney refers to suggests that a sustainable population depends on how much we consume. If we all live as consumers, we're already more than three times the carrying capacity. At a moderate level of consumption, the Earth could sustain about 6 billion (compared to the 6.8 billion present today) and at an impoverished level about 13.6 billion--though because we keep depleting natural capital, this number will decline each year. So we need to rapidly discuss both these taboo topics: consumption and population. A primary goal of the environmental community should be to encourage people to consider carefully both their reproductive choices and their consumption choices. And no, not all environmentalists are silent on population. I have been writing a series of essays on population,!

consumption and other environmental topics for World Watch magazine which you can read here: www.livingearthethics.org. Erik Assadourian, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC

I fully agree. The ones who can be the leaders to solve this worldwide problem are the Pope,the Ayatollah and several other churchleaders.Just to tell their followers to have no mre than 1 or 2 children just like in China. And also permitting girls and women to have abortions. It would probably be sufficient. Hettie, Hengelo, Netherlands

Food has been made for man. Now, on the earth, there is four or five time more food than human beings. Problem is not about the amount of men. Problem is in the nature of our stewardships of all ressources. Matthieu Klopfenstein, Bienne, Switzerland

I believe that population explosion is at the heart of all environmental and economic issues. We are stripping the earth of its resources, polluting it and changing its climate because of the constant need to grow economies to keep pace with increasing demand for more food, energy, housing and jobs. kiwidavid, New Zealand

I do agree. The argument makes a lot of sense to me. Not knowing this history, I wondered what the 'abuses' were. Browsing 1970s magazines you see references to the Zero Population Growth movement. It makes so much sense. I think we even need to shrink our human population. Not having any children myself, feel unashamed to make this argument. I wonder what went wrong for this movement. Ed Hemlock, London, England

It's hardly a taboo - talk of over-population goes back at least to Malthus, and in more modern times has been widely discussed for at least thirty years. My understanding is that population levels drop as economic situations shift from subsistence farming (in which large families are an advantage) to industrial (in which large families are a disadvantage). Resource distribution and consumption is far more of a problem than the absolute numbers of people which in any case can best be controlled by working toward a stable industrial society in which large numbers of children don't die in infancy, it becomes very expensive to have and raise children who, in addition, are not needed to provide labour to support the family. It helps a lot if the society is wealthy enough so that the elderly can be cared for even if they don't have adult children to provide all their support. Providing birth control information isn't going to be particularly helpful in reducing population levels in societies in which there are excellent reasons to have large families. Improving life in every way from food distribution to economic development will provide all the motivation needed to decrease population size - look at the parts of Western countries who aren't even maintaining their populations through their birthrates! Cheryl, Canada

I strongly disagree. Articles like this underline the fascist nature of eco/green movements. Nature is in a constant state of change, and some call this proces evolution. The climate changes, population changes, and the world of tomorrow cannot be the same as the world of yesterday. Humans are a part of nature, and not aliens on this plant. Environmentalists remind me of evangelist preachers: 'repent, because the end is near'. In fact, there is no end, only change. This point of view is the real taboo for the media. J.Popovic, Toronto, Canada

Serious population CONTROL should have been exerted compulsorily decades ago. The Chinese had the right idea with the one child policy, it should be instituted in the western world with heavy fines for transgressors, and in the third world with trade sanctions against nations that do not enforce it. As the planet's resources are dwindling and the world's population increasing, it is blindingly obvious that we are heading for a train wreck of cataclysmic proportions, with suffering which will make violations of personal freedom of choice look like a minor inconvenience. Charles Hipser Charles Hipser, NYC USA

Of course the total population matters. It's just a difficult sell in societies that face a collapse of the pension system without any children to care for their ever longer-living parents (sometimes kept alive at incredible costs to the environment). Unfortunately, the best way to reduce the number of children people have is to put them in Western, urban conditions (which also need reforming). Witness China and India with their terrifying male surpluses. Simply informing women on how to control their fertility is not enough -- they must want less children, which means creating societies where children are no longer the sole old-age pension. Again, that means the wasteful Western model, where people invest in money and goods rather than offspring. And even more female hormones in the rivers means further environmental degradation for possibly but little benefit population-wise. There are more taboos to overcome than merely the reduction of the population. Stefaan Eeckels, Harlange, Luxembourg

When I was growing up, there was a huge push to contain the population, with Zero Population Growth at the forefront. Since then there has been virtual silence on this matter, while the earths population continues to grow unchecked, and I kept wondering why. This is an issue as important as global warming, and needs urgent attention and action James Barnett, Madoc, Ontario Canada

John is exactly right. This discussion was urgent in the 1960's, as pointed out in the article that coined, 'Tragedy of the Commons'. It's even more urgent today. With limited resources in the world, reproduction is a social issue whether you admit it or not. Without a social agreement on how to keep our numbers sustainable (and how to punish those who violate that social agreement), we will suffer the horror of a population crash, devastating our environment on the way. There is simply no excuse to delay this discussion any longer. Devin McLennan, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Considering the fact that the world population has doubled in the last 30 years it is only a matter of time before before this issue blows up in our face. So many of our activities at an international, national and personal level are proving to be unsustainable and it will take strong leadership to tackle this issue head on. Im hoping President Obama will assume this role. I am optimistic that we can overcome this challenge but am fearful that it will take a katastrophic event/events for us to see the light. Dave , Dundee

There are a number of mechanics to limit human growth but strangely even the Chinese limit on the number of children has failed to have the desired effect. High mortality leads to higher birth rates which is normally controlled by disease, famine or other means. Porritt's pontifications shows he knows no answers either. Mans interference with the natural controls in IVF, medicinal or medical means, the cultural differences in various countries means that ultimately the only controller is the earth. The Volcanic eruptions 75000 years ago reputedly left only a small population, the black death in the 15th century which killed 30% of the population. Humans need to understand that when the world no longer can support us we will die. That is all there is to it. Tony, Welling Kent

Never has a 'taboo' been so exposed for the past 200 years. And never has such a question been answered by anything else than eugenism. And it always start with some good sense, but also somewhere over there, for 'those poor people who cannot get fed properly'. If you want to educate women, educate women. If you want to empower women, empower them. By the way, it is as much a question for men. But leave every one of us alone with our conscience for the number of human being. It is not a question of belief or religion. I, for one, has none, am not baptatised in any and think that the aim of a human being is to know rather than believe. Human beings are not a parameter. And there are always too much human beings for those who dispise them. Berst regards, Bruno Clmentin, Saint-Etienne, France

I'm so glad to see there are those trying to bring this subject into light. Something I've been concerned about for so many years. Programs need to be put in place giving women strength and education, starting with the avoidance of unwanted / unplanned pregnancies, which are in many cases a burden on economy and are unfair to all parties involved. Good Luck. Ryan, Salt Lake City, USA

Feeney's argument is generally rubbish. Look around the world: who consumes the vast majority of foodstuffs and energy despite being severely in the minority population-wise? The US, Canada and Europe. Income and wealth redistribution, or at least truly fair access to int'l trade markets for commodities - especially those produced in the 3rd World - would go a long way towards curbing notions that human population is experiencing 'runaway growth'. With Feeney's attitude and those of the others that belong to this elitist cabal, what we really should do is what Indira Ghandi did in India in the late 70s: round up all the poor people, castrate the males, sterilise the females and be done with it; treat the world's poor as if they're not just a problem but a menace/plague akin to locusts and worms; eradicate them all. Feeney might do well to put his money where his mouth is and have his tubes tied if he wants to set such an important example. Arrogant meep. Paul M, Kyiv, Ukraine

I keep reading about places being family friendly, but few people ever consider that this also pulls away resources from the individual. I could never understand just why people go on about the family being the foundation of civilization, while it is large families that are eating in to all of our resources. It was because of this kind of concent that I became vegetarian in 1970. Isn't it about time that people started thinking about how we can only save this planet by taking on some individual resposiblites, such as being vegetarian, & not having any children of their own. The family is dead ! Long live the family ! Martyn Lowe, Islington

about time too. population is the elephant in the eco-room. but i would add that it is not only scientsts, scholars, people with 'expertise', etc who have a relevant opinion in this issue. what about ordinary voters? nick welch, london

At this point, no. Calamity is simply a matter of time. We're a species that was created by the same rules as any other on the planet, but we do not practice Darwinism as a rule for ourselves because that would be wrong. Our weakest in many cases are the ones that procreate the most in the 'civilized' world, others simply foot the bill, our most educated have the least. You would have to not only discuss birth control methods, but the realities of nature that are only cool in the third person on the discovery channel. The only things left to discuss is how bad off will the planet be, when, and in what form the inevitable balancing act nature will play out on us be. Wayne, New Castle, DE - US

As the late Bill Hicks said: - I'm sick and tired of this 'Isn't humanity great?' bull*&%#. We're just a virus with shoes... As a species we are already responsible for wiping out numerous other lifeforms on this planet. I hope we are not dumb enough to lay the foundations for our own demise. Even the dinosaurs did better than that. Richard Keen, Den Haag, Netherlands

I'd ask author to name a country (any single one) with sustaining GROWING TEMPO of population growth. And only then we'd have a talk about sweet and sensational taboo breaking. JaneZ, from the part of the world with below-replacement fertility JaneZ, Surgut, Russia

Mr. Feeney is mistaken. There is right now an enormous underutilization and misappropriation of our world's resources. This is the real cause of social injustice and poverty. The earth can sustain many, many more people if we simply take care of it and use it well, and preaching population control as the answer to everything is, frankly, naive and foolhardy. Matthew, Baltimore, U.S.A.

The world is, in effect, a ship in which we all sail. Overload any floating vessel and it will eventually cease to float. Of course there are already to many human beings on this earth. As a consequence of which we are increasingly fighting amongst ourselves for ever diminishing resources. And more tragically still, in the course of that unthinking scramble for land/minerals/water we are responsible for the extinction of so many other living creatures and plantlife, thereby reducing the very bio-diversity upon which are future almost certainly depends. Mark , Bristol

Overpopulation in poor areas is driven by subsistence needs and can have very different environmental consequences from those of the overconsumption of the affluent, though they overlap. Thus Freeny is correct that both are serious problems, and we cannot neglect the population problem if any progress is to be made. The Chinese government is the only one that has really dealt with the problem, and the unpopularity of that policy in the West is probably related to the failure of mainstream environmental movements to address the problem. Brian Lander, New York, USA

With a single sentence, the Pope could make such an impact. Brad, Zurich, Switzerland

It sounds like good rhetoric, but what is the plan? I don't think that contraceptives alone is going to cause that great of an impact. Even in my town in the US, where everyone received meep education in school and condoms and birth control are available for anyone who goes to a clinic, girls are getting pregnant in high school. Others have their third or fourth kid in their early twenties and are already milking the welfare system. The problem goes much deeper than simply education and providing resources. Ryan, Maine, USA

It's about time! Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but I wonder if religion is going to stand in the way of basic human dignity and common sense, when so many major religions fail to embrace any real family planning or birth control? Shannon Edwards, Tucson, Arizona

I completely agree that population control is a must-tackle issue, but John omitted the main reason for the silence about it -- politics. Developed nations, most if not all of which are facing low birth rates, want nothing to do with it because implementing such a policy means being inevitably overrun by waves of migration from poorer regions of the world, and the collapse of their institutions and even cultures. Powers that be of the developing world are too busy plundering their countries to really give a meep if thousands or millions die from disease and starvation, Zimbabwe is case in point. The only way to tackle this issue, as uncomfortable this notion is for most Westerners, is to spread the wealth, elevate the standard of living in the developing world, dramatically boost the level of education and technology there. The world's most powerful countries must either face this fact and develop a long-term strategy for bringing this about. Either do this or terra-form Mars and Venus, which would solve the problem, at least temporarily. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near the latter option becoming reality. Jay T., San Antonio, TX

Resource consumption is bound to increase with population increase. Everywhere, but, especially, in third-world countries, women (and men, too) need to be educated about the immorality of unlimited procreation. H. MacEwen, Kuala Lumpur

I agree whole heartedly. Blind imperialism and capitalism throughout the ages has worked tirelessly to use religion as a growth tool. This problem has its roots many thousands of years back in human history and must be confronted. Any rancher/herder knows that you can only raise x number of livestock with x number of land and water. A global plan to combat population growth is probably more important than any other environmental plan or topic. Jeff Woolsey, Loveland Colorado

Ask anyone who works with 'real things' in this world like water treatment, farming, waste disposal, forestry, etc. We are already in a perilous situation. As long as 'sheep people' the world over, keep listening to those controlling voices, like the pope, who claim to be translating for god, we will remain in many of the messes we find ourselves in. These are the people who burn books, and would kill someone who claimed that the earth was round and not flat, just a few hundred years ago. We have no chance to stop our march to extinction unless we address the education system in all countries of the world. The George Bushes of the world allowed 'faith based creationism' taught in our schools so we can maintain a healthy number of people who will never understand cause and affect. Science can predict and explain much, but if the morons are not required to listen and learn, they will all keep breeding, for they see it as a contest, for they are producing 'children of god'. It is very politically incorrect to state, but the numbers show us that thinking people are not making babies at even a fraction the rate as 'faith based' sheeple. God help us all. Nick Wimett, La Madera New Mexico USA

I agree completely with Mr. Feeney. Having lived in places such as India and Pakistan, I have come to understand the severity of the need to reduce the overall population to make the world a better, cleaner place in which to live. There has been definite progress in population reduction in some areas of the world, however, not addressing the issue of population control in places where it is desperately needed is condeming the world to an ever greater loss of resources, landspace and sanitation. I believe that if more people realise that population control is an effective way to curb exponential population growth, then we will be on our way to achieving the Millennium Development Goals which have been set out by the United Nations to ensure that every person on earth has the same basic needs administered to. Ria, Bangkok, Thailand

I completely agree. The increasing population directly has an impact on the global environment and this is something that needs to be addressed. In addition to this, it is fairly evident that the wealthier countries in the world have better control of population growth. While this could also be an effect of wealth, I believe it is a huge cause of wealth as well. By addressing the problem of population growth, we not only help solve our environmental problems but we also help end poverty. Tanner Boyd, San Antonio, Texas (USA)

Is there really 'opposition' to talking about population growth? The assumption in this article seems to be that 'talking about' population growth automatically implies reduction. That may well be the ultimate conclusion, but responses like Dr. Feeney's 'Let's dispense with this confused notion right now' obstruct the possibility of a discourse that is able to come to grips with the complex question of what constitutes human rights -- particularly in light of the intertwined histories of rights and Western individualism. Yes, if there is a taboo on talk it should be addressed; however, the unquestioned assumption that our Western, modern conception of which priorities humanity should set for itself (as reflected, for example, in our own low or negative population growth rate) is somehow 'natural' or 'universal' strikes me as fundamentally problematic. Jeff, Canada

I agree. Only advocating the use of new technology to boost food production won't do - the Universe might be expanding, but the planet isn't. And it's about time somebody had the guts to confront the one they call the pope on this. Rob, Walsall, UK

It is the mainstream media, economists, and religious leaders -not environmentalists who need to get this message out. If environmentalists and scientists were in charge or had any power of influence the world would be a lot different than it is right now. When no one listens to you for years and years and years -you get tired of talking. Beverly, Los Angeles, CA

Oh good grief, is it that time in the Great Debate Cycle already? 'Empowering' women (weird expression, that) is the right thing to do, whatever the result on population growth, and it is not the fear of the Great Population Control Taboo that impedes this policy, nor should the wish to control population growth reverse that. It is largely the intrusion of religion into politics... and I can't quite see why fighting religious dogma with environmental dogma would improve the situation at all. As for the rest, 1798 A.D. is on the phone for you. The ghost of Thomas Malthus would like a word. Something about picking the most controversial possible means of promoting otherwise unexceptional policies? unnecessary repetition,

I do agree. The trouble is you are talking about censoring something that humans' consider both an essential right and a necessity: that is to procreate. The only answer is to change the way society views having children. We are going to have to beginning to teach our children that having kids is not a necessity or a right, but that it is actually socially irresponsible. And to teach girls and boys to go against their biological programming is a lesson that will be very hard to teach. Roark, New York (UK born)

I am very pleased to see an article that seeks to address a problem that has been overlooked for far too long. Overpopulation is clearly a massive problem for humanity, although I do not want government controls on population I think that it is very important, particuarly in the developing world where resources are scarce, to educate people on the benefits of family planning and not having more children then a family can support. Well done, although we must still focus on pollution and other environmental concerns it is imperative that we seek to halt overpopulation as well. WIll McLeod, Washginton D.C.

Hi. I agree, the population growth is a taboo and it must be changed NOW! If I'm wright, human population has doubled in a hundred years. So it's like +300000000 people!!! In such a rate (which in my mind WILL rise) in the next 100 years there WOULD be over 12 billion people! Now if there is some one who can tell me HOW can we, humans, make room and provide food for such a number of people extra, when we can't even do it for current numbers? How many 100 of millions of people are living in slums all over the world as a result from this inability? And the numbers are sky-rocketing, every year millions are joining them! Me myself have made up my mind to tackle this problem by talking to my friends then they address the family aspects, its future or just thinking about having a 'big' family for them selfs. The problem in my mind is, like I mentioned before, numbers, but were are they and what is causing them? I think its in the poor regions of the world where family's are 'forced' being big, for it's the only way they can survive, all working to make some money and to get some food for living. In such situations family's of 6-8, counting parents and there children, are quite common in Africa, Asia, Philippines, South America and Central America including southern USA. To reduce this problem is necessary, like in this article, to improve living situations so that two or even ONE working parent could support a family of two or three (1-2 children). Vytautas Rindzevicius, Uppsala, Sweden

This is an excellent clear exposition of the problem, with which I thoroughly agree. People concerned about population growth are very familiar with the fact of the press and some green organisations, Greenpeace for example, refusing to recognise the problem, and it is absolutely essential to get through to people at large. Roger Plenty, Stroud, UK

Yes, he is right. It is ridiculous the way environmentalists refuse to talk about this topic, the most important of all. What's more we should stop seeing population stabilisation/reduction as a necessary evil. To achieve it would be wonderful and only then will we be truly able to tackle the shameful levels of poverty in the world. Christopher Padley, Market Rasen, UK

Over population mitigation is a must and I fully support education, birth control, women's rights, health care, poverty reduction, and yes even abortion of unwanted pregnancies. For those freaking out by my last option, statistics show that increasing the first mitigates the last option. Eather we reduce population in a controled fashion or nature will do it in her own way. 'Nature bats last.' Leif Knutsen, Port Townsend, Washington

One major impediment to bringing out this issue is the general perception, fostered by the mainstream media, that the Catholic Church is implacably opposed to any efforts to address unchecked population growth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read paragraphs 2368-2371 in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' and you'll get the true picture. A key quote: 'A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.' Mark Hartman, San Diego, California, USA

Without the slightest doubt overpopulation is the one problem that has to be resolved. Birth control must be spread to all peoples and if that upsets some who would use overpopulation to gain adherents, then so be it John R Harwood, Brantford Ontario Canada

You talk about previous population control abuses and then show a picture of appearantly hungry brown people. Are you concerned about hunger and poverty, or the environment? You talk of learning from past abuses but why not show pictures of wealthy westerners tossing last years cell phone in a landfill or driving around, by themselves, in their brand new Hummer. Everyone knows that the west produces the bulk of the toxins and waste that is destroying the environment. Kiss my meep white folks. Do you think the non-white world will exterminate itself in order to save the planet for you? Not bloody likely. You go down with the rest of us. false1, USA

Mr. Feeney has hit the nail on the head. Reducing consumption is at best a temporary solution, if we don't address the issue of population growth no amount of conservation will save humanity. If we don't control our numbers nature will; without politics and without pity. The only other way out is to find new planets to inhabit and we will use this one up long before we have the technology to colonize other worlds. Scott W, Port Orchard, USA

Of course John Feeney is right. For too long we have allowed religious leaders to dictate the rules on population growth. Only countries relatively free of organised religion (such as China) have implemented any serious policies to limit population. I also agree with Feeney that education is a big part of the key to actually achieving population control in a humane way. And it must be secular education! Religious education should not be allowed to substitute for secular education, (although it might perhaps be permitted on evenings and weekends!) Martin Ellis, London, England

I absolutely agree with this article. In fact I was wondering why this topic is not discussed in the international platform. Many countries cannot dare to talk about this because of their domestic politics. But if UN comes with some guidelines most of the countries would agree with it, and would be able to convince their citizens that it is binding and cannot be ignored. UN can say like every country has to have at least X units of habitat land and Y units of forest land per citizen. If not, then a road map to achieve this in some years. Karan Singh Raghuwanshi, Delhi, India

Far from being absent from the debate, I've been hearing about population as a problem at least since I developed a sense of the existence of environmentalism 35 years or so ago. The problem is not that no-one will discuss it but that it is too often raised by anthropogenic warming deniers as an accusation of selective focus. The form of it always goes, 'Why is the environmental movement conspiring to limit our freedoms and ignoring the bigger issue of population.' Well, we're not, and the change of subject isn't working. The two are interconnected - but we know that the demographic transition will eventually turn the population juggernaut around. We don't know that the number of people living at European standards of consumption is not going to double and double again. If we end up with only 2 billion people, all consuming as much as the average American or European today, having controlled the population will be rather moot. 2 or 3 billion more all living at subsistence le!

vels off local resources won't have anything like the same impact as just 2 or 3 billion flying and driving. Elliott Bignell, Sargans, Switzerland

Traffic. Lines. Anyone ever been to the DMV? Of course he is right. People will die if this problem is not addressed. It has the ability to wipe out our entire race. Every one knows what is going on, it is just a matter of when someone does something about it. Andrew W., Philadelphia, USA

I agree wholeheartedly with John Feeney, and I am surprised that this topic hasn't come up with all the recent discussions revolving around environmental issues. Hopefully with Obama's recent repeal of Bush's global gag rule, women across the world can become more educated about their options regarding family planning. If some sort of plan isn't implemented in the near future, I believe that we are headed straight for a major crisis. There won't be enough land available to grow food to sustain the ballooning human population - and it doesn't help that we haven't sustainably farmed the land we DO have (ahem: corn). Fresh water will become a commodity even more than it already is. This is exactly what I thought of when reading the recent story of a woman in the US giving birth to octuplets - when she already has six children. Noelle, Minneapolis, MN USA

Hoorah at last. I have been talking about this for years. The human species is too successful for its own good. We cannot go on expanding as we are. The world needs balance and the human species has thrown the world out of balance. The Chinese understand the concept, but implementation was screwed up. The native American Indians understood the balance with nature as do most of the remaining native tribes in places like South America. Its a knotty subject , but one that needs discussion and resolution . John OB, Basinstoke UK

Why does the UK 'Green' movement not acknowledge the environmentally destructive impact of (mainly immigration-fuelled) population growth on THIS country, where the Government is demanding the building of 3 million new homes - at least a third on greenfield sites - to accommodate a projected population of over 70 million by 2030? The only Green group to have had the courage to campaign on this issue has been the Optimum Population Trust, which has pointed out that due to recent high immigration England is already the most densely populated country in Europe (having last year overtaken the Netherlands), despite having the environmental capacity for a population of only 27 million. P. Carter, Worthing, England

I absolutely agree. The churches, for self interest reasons, have promoted overpopulation, and politically stifled anyone that disagrees with them. In my country the christian Hispanic community has the highest birthrate of all socioethnic groups. This goes back to the Spanish conquerers, who spread christianity throughout South and Central America. Al, Madison, WI USA

We can'

Sorry. Wasn't thinking.

I'll hotlink next time.

Population problems have a way of working themselves out automagically

^ Not really the same thing. Them deers is limited to breeding stock and resources on hand. We get to roam, meep, and eat whomever and whatever we want.

Also, I play guitar in a temperature and humidity controlled room.

Shall We Play a Game?

The newer, greener genocide will make you feel warm and comfortable inside.

I am considering this a no meep sherlock article

Leaving out the chemical fertilizers (oil) element from this as it related to food production is stupid.

Them deers is limited to breeding stock and resources on hand. We get to roam, meep, and eat whomever and whatever we want.

'on hand' is a planet in our case, instead of an island. It's a little bigger, which is why there's 7b people instead of 6k deer, but it's pretty much the same thing. You can get from almost any point on the planet to almost any other point in under 24 hours, it's not very big...

The bigger the population and the more competition for resources, the more war, famine, viruses and diseases will thin out our herd. It doesn't matter how technologically advanced a species is. That species can only growing it's population until it has run out of resources. Once that happens, an equilibrium will be reached, one way or another.

Ghostie, your guitar and room and temp/humidity control are all finite resources. They may make you feel superior to reindeer within the greater scale of our 'island' but an ecological system has laws that can't be broken. Once the human plague has run it's course, it will be dealt with on Mother Natures terms... and that meep will make Hitler look like a meeping teddy bear.

It's a good thing I know the Baby Jesus will save me, then.

Of the estimated 10-100 million species currently existing on the earth, 25% are expected to become extinct by 2014.
-US National Science Board (1989)

Of all the species that have ever existed more than 99.9% are currently extinct, and regardless of how 'special' you may think Humankind is, it's just another species who's fossilized bones will be marveled over by the coming race of super intelligent meeproaches.

^ And super chickens that a devolving back into dinosaurs.

^ and super huge chicken breasts that feel and taste like human ones.

I LOVE THIS FUTURE!

Jeeesus Spank. Save your words. Nobody is going to read all that meep. Now I want you to boil all that down to 3 words. Like:

meep AIN'T TRUE

or

WE GONNA DIE

or

meepAS GOTTA EAT

Then post a pic of some meep. Now get to work. We know you can do better

Ex wife's gotta make a $20. How's that?

This meep look EXACTLY like one of my wifes bestest friends. And when I say EXACTLY, I mean I think it's actually her.

*headsplodes*

Ya Gotta Eat

^ See! exactly what I am talking about! Three words AND a meep pic.

meepAS GOTTA EAT!