Odd words from Oddie!

I do not think he'll be all that bothered, Holly, as he's in his 80s now.

I doubt he'd have been bothered about my opinion no matter what his age was durhamjen!

If they could charge as much for food, clean water, sanitation, health care, etc as they do for inessential goods, they probably would concentrate on producing more.

I don't see the point of stating that the world has enough resources if it was all shared out equally because that won't happen; people are basically greedy and will hold onto to what they consider is theirs.

Take the Opec cartel for instance - they own around 60% of the world's oil reserves and have controlled the price (and supply) of oil for over 40 years. Then America discovers shale gas and is flooding the market with it and driving down the price of Opec oil supplies. In a fair world, they would all sell at a fair price anyway but what's the betting that Opec will reign in the supply of oil in an attempt to push the price back up.

So, people have to live in societies that can support them regardless of what is actually available if it was all shared out equally and that means not becoming over-populated.

How do we define what is the "right" level of population? I think it's probably true that there has always been poverty, whatever the level of population, so presumably it doesn't occur just because there are too many people.

No, I don't imagine overpopulation is the sole cause but in the kind of society we now live in, it will certainly exacerbate the situation - how many people have the time to grow their own produce, make some of their own clothes, make their own furniture (I remember an uncle of mine making their dining table and chairs - complete with fancy work on the legs!), etc. Land has become scarce so is there an alternative to being provided with food by farmers/producers or has it now become necessity and with prices spiralling ever upwards, poverty will only get worse (for some) when there are too many mouths chasing a finite amount of food (or people wanting housing).

HollyDaze I think you've made a very good point. Most people (I include myself) don't have the skills to produce and repair the things they need - skills that in previous times were handed down through the generations.

Those in full time work also, as you say, don't have the time because they're either too busy thinking up products and services that don't address people's fundamental needs or they're too busy delivering them. Watching The Apprentice or Dragon's Den gives a good insight into a crazy world where people talk about "adding value", "branding", etc., etc. Even the young man whose forte was invention and who eventually won one of the series, produced the earth shattering invention of, I think, a curved nail file.

I think there is a need for a discussion about how our economic system works because it seems a nonsense to me. There were three economists on Newsnight the other night talking about whether it was desirable for interest rates to go up, to stay as they are, or to go down. It appeared that there is some mysterious, undefined and indefinable point where the interest rate is "just right" - neither too high nor too low. But none of the economists could agree what that point was.

It's slightly off the subject of population growth, but the way resources - and human beings' time, labour and commitment, are expended seems to me to be relevant to the question of whether the earth can properly provide for all of its people or just a few of them.

Eloethan - I firmly believe that most people would agree with you (me included) about the way our economic system operates but to change it would be nigh on impossible; as I have said before, we rely on those who benefit the most from the current system being willing to change it in favour of those who don't.

the question of whether the earth can properly provide for all of its people or just a few of them.

This is the area that I think should be discussed but it would be political suicide I would imagine. With finite resources, there will always be a cut-off point surely? If the planet ended up populated like China, I do think there would be a serious problem about provision for the world's population, unless, of course, science comes up with the wonder pill that meets all of our daily nutrient requirements (water would be another matter). Would any measures taken apply to all people or just those of the lower orders?

China's one-child policy seemed to work for a while but then the birth-rate fell below the population replacement level (it's at a ridiculously low level of something like 1.6 (replacement rate is, I think, 2.1)) and now they have relaxed the rule - the (what has become) usual scenario of too many elderly to be supported by the workers. What I wish someone would do is state why this has become more of a problem in recent years than before? How did societies cope with providing for their elderly? I have my own suspicions but I'm probably way off the mark. It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on it though.

Although I agree that because those with vested interests in maintaining the present system have a lot of power and would do everything to prevent change, I wouldn't say it is "impossible" for change to occur.

People individually are relatively powerless but if they work together towards change, it can happen. It's only by this means that improvements for "ordinary people" have been achieved - not through the generosity of those that wield power. The feeling that many people have these days that "there's nothing we can do" is, I think, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The one-child policy in China did work to the extent that it reduced population levels, but many would argue that to forcibly impose such restrictions is unethical. Also, because of the preference for males, this has created a dangerous gender imbalance.

I suppose age imbalance has become more of an issue because average life expectancy has risen. There is a huge emphasis on people taking paid employment outside of the home but I believe that as household incomes have risen, this has been "eaten up" by an increasing cost of goods and services. So, to meet those rising costs, more people within a household need to take paid employment and cannot afford to look after elderly and/or disabled family members. If they do so, they are seriously financially disadvantaged and receive little practical support.

You are quite right Eloethan - I am allowing my natural pessimism to overrule logic.

From what I've read, incomes haven't kept pace with inflation for over 10 years now. Maybe if incomes had matched inflation, there wouldn't be the need for everyone of working age to go out to work (I know it doesn't suit some parents to stay at home but there are many who would love to be a stay at home parent).

I was watching a news item yesterday about the reasons why they think the country's money has run out (ready?) and they stated that 'as pay has fallen (in relative terms) and although the economy is now booming and more and more people are employed, they are employed in part-time or the minimum wage bracket which means they either don't pay tax or they pay very little and this has led to a considerable decrease in government income'. It's a good job we have all these specialists to tell us something like that! How come the average person on the street can work that out but the policy makers can't?

There is one bright spot on the horizon though: it was also stated that areas of the country that are run (almost entirely) by local councils are doing better than those under the direct influence of Westminster. Maybe change will happen.

I have several friends who have chosen not to have children, so I have used up their quota and had five myself.

Bill Oddie has three children, but he had two wives, so that's replacement.

Chris Packham thinks the same as Bill Oddie.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/28/how-save-planet-stop-having-children-doctors

2012 UK figures show that married couples have an average of 1.8 children and unmarried couple 1.7. The proportion of families containing three or more children is 14%. Big families are unusual.

Pippa Hayes said she had only had 2 children because she felt she had no "right" to have any more. What made her decide that she had the "right" to have 2, why not 1 - or even none? It seems to me that, whilst apparently being concerned about population levels, that concern only came into play after she'd had 2 children.

It's interesting that several of the high profile people who have been quite outspoken about population issues, have two or three children themselves.

And is having children a right? I feel it should be viewed more as a responsibility - not only to the world as a whole but also to the child. I still think that the assumption that a relationship is not complete without children should be challenged. It leads people to have children - probably the most important and far-reaching thing they will ever do - almost without questioning whether it is something they really want, or are emotionally equipped, to do.

It's not about rights with such people. They just use that term to project a morally superior attitude. Yuck.

If they concentrated more on the proven solution to a too high population growth, education for girls and an improvement in living conditions for those in dire poverty (clean water supplies, proper toilets, etc), then the problem would solve itself, as the falling population growth rates in developed countries has shown. Repeating the Malthusian bullshit over and over again is just stupid. All the more surprising, therefore, to hear it from intelligent and supposedly well-educated people. It seems they are not educated enough.

Well said Bags

thatbags I actually think it's OK if a person is very concerned about any issue that they be able to express that concern and suggest possible solutions.

However, I do think that some of the people putting forward this particular argument are on rather shaky territory, given their own actions.

But it's a matter for individual people to decide how many children they want. It's not up to anyone to tell others how many they should have.

It's bern pointed out many times that the problem isn't the number of people but the amount of the world's resources that each individual consumes.

Those who purport to occupy the moral high ground should put their house in order and lead very frugal lives themselves.

Of course it's OK for people to express their opinions, eloethan, just as it's OK for other people to say those opinions are silly (and why).

Hear, hear! mice. Exactly.

To say you do not have the right to have more than two children is not the same as saying you have the right to have two children.

I agree thatbags and MiceElf. I too feel that a more pressing matter is that of distribution and use of resources. 85 of the richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population (3.5 billion people).

Below is a link to an interesting BBC News online article. I agree with the comment that we should focus on the need for women to be in control of their own reproductive system. As some people also pointed out, whilst access to contraception is vital, so are many other types of medical treatment that will reduce high infant mortality levels.

Apparently even Paul Ehrlich has altered his views re population:

"[If he were to write his book today,] "I wouldn't focus on the poverty-stricken masses", [he told the BBC.]

"I would focus on there being too many rich people. It's crystal clear that we can't support seven billion people in the style of the wealthier Americans." "

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959

Or the equally wealthy Brits.

Do you think we're skirting round the fact that it's partly the increasing proportion of elderly folk in the population that's causing economic problems?
Rather than birth control at the other end.
On one of my visits to India to see our son, (they're adopting some Indian orphans), I was shocked to hear from a health worker in local villages that sometimes the older generation are "put to sleep" in a painless way. The family can't afford to feed them.

The words "right" or "rights" somehow don't seem appropriate with regard to reproduction. Successful reproduction is what life is all about and, until very recently, that applied to human animals as well as all the other kinds of life that exist (or have existed) on our planet. It is only because we have increased our success (survival) rate that how many offspring people have has become an issue. And it has only remained an issue (or rather, been called an issue) because some people have not learned from history and noted that birth rates fall with increased human prosperity and tried to solve the poverty problem that besets so many before blethering about how many kids people have.

Here is what one of the richest people on the planet is doing:

www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning

Some people may argue that it is morally wrong for very rich people to 'meddle' in the lives of the poorest, but I believe it is morally right for people who have the funds and ability to do so to bring this help to the millions of women who want it and are otherwise unable to access it.

My personal view is that it is morally wrong that an extremely tiny proportion of the world's population should be so extremely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population, but that is a separate issue.

If everyone who was extremely wealthy behaved as Bill and Melinda Gates do then the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, I don't think most of them do.