The problem I have with this is that the upper economic class and responsible individuals will follow suit with such a suggestion to limit births and thus "go green."

Here is the catch: those in lower economic status will continue to have their children. Thus, this will put a strain on our economic system where single mothers giving birth to many children for social benefits to continue to receive those benefits. Are they responsible? Do they care about the environment? Perhaps. It is hoped that those in the lower economic stratus will improve their lot in life and rise to economic wealth to feed the social security system for those retired and aged. Hopefully, this will occur. What if it does not.? We could run out of responsible econonomically stable people to care for the elderly and thus, there will be other issues at hand such as Euthanasia because there will be lots of us around who cannot take care of ourselves. This issue may replace abortion. Thinking?

Frances, Tampa, USA/FL

If you want to be "green", to reduce carbon emissions, to save resources, to reduce overcrowding, to limit the magnitude of disasters, one measure outweighs all others: have two or fewer children. This applies in Britain, Europe, and the developing world. Every additional child will use up food and fuel resources, will need heating, scarce fresh water, and in richer countries such as ours, a car. You could be as environmentally irresponsible as you like - insulate your house poorly, don't recycle, use the car instead of a bike or bus; all of which will be totally outweighed by the environmental damage caused by an additional child.

Anthony Young, Norwich, UK

Of course, it does, otherwise who'll pay our retire?

Michael, Madrid, Spain

In general terms Malthus was right, is right and must always be right. We cannot keep expanding the population of humans without dramatic effect on the ecostructure. There are just far too many of us in most countries. Every environment would be greatly improved by having far fewer people in it. There are economic consequences to any such policy in a capitalist based 'growth' economy, but nothing that cannot be overcome by injections of common sense and more rational behaviour.

Another linked problem is the unfortunate fact that much of the population growth takes place in sectors of the population with poor economic prospects, low self estime, diminished intelligence and lack of aspiration; leading inevitably to a state where the society becomes more fragmented and complex, but fewer and fewer of that population understand how it works or become involved in elevated cultural activity.

We have entered a new Dark Age where many members of society have no moral structure.

Frankland Macdonald Wood, Sansepolcro , Italy

Everyone should read America Alone by Mark Steyn

No they shouldnt. Its hysterical anti British anti European doomongering diatribes have been successfully disembowled by savvier people. If you do read suggest you then google the various internet sites that actually know what they are on about. Even the title 'America Alone' is absurd. Maybe that should read 'America Sola'

Steynwatch, London,

Old and cherished notions of overpopulation die hard. It is difficult to accept that this is the last generation of European Europe, and that those fearful speculations we were told in our youth were in such extraordinary error. Or were they merely the rationalization of an overindulgent generation unwilling to sacrifice for their children and without hope for the future?

The indisputable fact is that world population is leveling off. Many nations are already seeing a net decline. Russia is beginning its death spiral as European emigration accelerates.

But the fatal ideas persist, like the leeches in a physician's cupboard.

John, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: UK Affluence vs. Ethiopia

Of course, the other alternative is to make sure that the average UK citizen has the same affluence as the average Ethiopian - a policy that seems to have some traction in government circles.

GuyInCT, Connecticut, USA

It's all the working out of little-understood historical trend. Longevity will trump low birth rates. At some point, the arithmetic works like this:
Each year that passes, average expected lifespan increases by mor than one year. Which means that there is no expected maximum age.
Aubrey de Grey has all the details, if you want them.

Brian H, Vancouver, Canada

Europe needs far fewer babies.
The world is suffering an over-population crises, which is killing both society and the planet.
Politicians claiming that there will be no money to support an aging population are locked into a short term mindset, akin to the fishermen claiming that fishing quotas will force them out of work.

Bevis, London, UK

Europe and the UK are doomed. Your continent has lost the confidence to perform even that most basic task - replace itself.

As the cities of Europe swell with unassimilated non-Europeans, vicious and frothing at the mouth, you fiddle, Nero-like, and do your best impression of those old three wise monkeys.

Allen, Vancouver, Canada

I would say that the Optimum Population Trust is right on. The quicker we rid the world of pretentious, whiny European socialists the better. For the good of mankind, Europe, please stop breeding. The ideal European birthrate? 0.0 per woman.

Whitney, Nashville, USA

I do not think it´s a question of having or not the desire of having children. It is just the adaptation to reality which makes women having children later or not being mothers at all.
There are another facts to be considered: Narcisism has nothing to do with continuation of our "Germinal Plasm", as Freud used to say, as a reason for having children in most of young people actually and this is exactly the same in Europe or in the mid-class in Latin America. I´m not writing about social factors, just for not being repetitive.

Isidoro Ringelheim, Buenos Aires, Argentina

People who cannot have children already do have to pay towards facilities for children. Their taxes go towards schools, sports facilities, library services, playgrounds, child health and other resources, all for the benefit of other people's children. Having children is a huge benefit and pleasure in itself. Parents should not expect even more rewards at the expense of those who have not been so lucky.

"Tax all those without children on an equal basis to offset the costs of child-raising to those who have children."

Tina, South Wales, UK

Yes: Europe needs more babies. In UK we are losing 200,000 a year through abortion.

Peter Sawyer, Barnet, Herts

The earth can support about a billion people. When too much of the eco-system (trees,plants,animals-our life support system and life that should be valued simply for itself) is given over to farmed food production for humans (mostly co-dependant on fossil fuels) you have our current massive problem. We need a sustained retreat. The child policy should be one or none but people are unutterably selfish. To talk of needing more babies to keep the pension system together is pathetically short-sighted. It is shares and the stock market and pensions that are responsible for the constant economic growth policies that are killing our planet. We are nearly seven billion so far. This is frankly obscene. Juxtaposed against the numbers of some animal species I find it mind-numbing. A few hundred wild tigers left in India (if that!) Fewer than 8000 owls in the whole of britain. It is sheer numbers that matter as well as our carbon footprints. Think long and hard. Do you REALLY need to breed?

sam smith, Reading, england

People shouldn't be regarded as a rescource. Nor should the supply be upped to increase quotas. This is inhumanely cold and ignores the obvious worldwide crisis of overpopulation and overdevelopement with consequent environment downgrading.
Why not have less people and give them more love and appreciation?
An aging population era is worth enduring not curing temporarily with feckless immigration increases for a single generation's assumed benifit.
It is the unwanted, excess children who have to suffer. Think again before mindlessly pushing out more humans than the imperfect world can possibly nurture properly.

xiandras, penzance, cornwall

Earlier post,
Susan (mother of 5!), Cork, Ireland:- "What would the oyster do in our situation..."

Reproduce until it's habitat becomes unsustainable. Due to lack of resources become malnourished, susceptible to disease and the oyster population would crash. The few that were left, would start the whole process over again?

An interesting thought.

Sebastian Syder, Bellingen, Australia

So, Tony in London "The Optimal Population Trust and the misanthropic pod-people exhibiting their joylessness and anti-human values on this thread need to understand that humanity's greatest resource is not water or energy but people. "

Really? So when we have insufficient water, drought has ravaged large areas of currently productive farmland across the world due to global warming and the power stations have shut down because there's no more fossil fuel left, we'll just use people as an alternative resource? Can you explain to me in real terms how that would work? I think that's what I really need to understand.

You won't buy your way of this one with meaningless platitudes, I'm afraid.

Joe, London, UK

mick jones sang train in vain not strummer , good reveiw thogh.k.d.

kevin dorris, belfast, ireland

To have or not to have, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of more children, (any
body who has had a lot of children knows that no tax incentives or child benefit can make up for the sheer hard work. Anybody who has not had a lot of children and has shared a flight or meal in a restauraunt has an inkling of what is involved!) or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
and by opposing, miss out on having them.
As a marine biologist, I see the extraordinary lengths that animals go to in the sea to reproduce. An oyster stuck onto a rock puts 90% of its energy into reproduction and if lucky one or two offspring will make it. The comments above illustrate the complexity of environmental, political and financial views on having children. But most interesting is the fact that we have moved from the biological need to reproduce to calm calculation on the value of those slings and arrows! What would the oyster do in our situation . . .

Susan (mother of 5!), Cork, Ireland

Europe has a low birth rate because people can not afford to house more children, also they are not optimistic about, jobs, pensions, housing, schools, crime,immigration, terrorism, taxation, politics; fix these & supply child care, after school activities, sport, & a safe place for children to live, no guns, knives , gangs,drugs & sex offenders; & you might get more babies. Also, and more importantly women go out to work, & no longer stay at home to bring up families well. Pay women who stay at home & many of these problems might be solved.
In the third world lots of children are an assurance for old age, free labour to grow food, long nights & no TV,poor female rights,poor education, a fear of survival. You may think this pessimistic but somewhere in there is the true reason for the imbalance of world populations.We have changed our world faster than Nature can adapt so our climate, population, imbalance of wealth & social structures are out of line. We need to question how we live.

charles, cannes, france

It is reported that the UK population currently includes 10% (that's 6 million!) who were born overseas. Cutting births seems a good idea but it won't assist if we continue to allow such immigration. The (very) long term goal should be a major reduction of the UK population, to perhaps 40 - 45 million. Then we could knock down the worst development of the past 100 years and grass it over, live in larger but affordable houses, and enjoy the countryside.

Timothy Smith, Delhi, India

‘I want to live in a country where my own people are the majority’ Tim, Tampa.

I assume that you are an American Indian (or whatever the politically correct term is in Florida).

Population control is imperative, as is a realistic use of natural resources.

If parts of Europe really need extra workers to fund our pensions and social benefits, there are millions of people willing to come to Europe and do all the jobs that we won’t do for ourselves. And they are available immediately without having to bred and educate them!

Carol, Slough, UK

yes, lets all breed more wage slaves to support corrupt social and political systems all over the world, if you can look a politician in the eye and still have children they you are without a Soul.

MarkC, London, UK

Certainly Melanie McDonaghon makes some important points.. If the Optimum Population Trust asked for an AVERAGE of 2 children per couple, then we still have a long way to go.. the birth rate was as low as 1.66 in 2002... It is still only 1.87.. i agree that the average should be kept at 2.10 to just replace the population.

As do non EU immigration,, Asylum seekers are allowed stay permanently in the UK evern after the Civil Wars have ended.. Take Sierra Leone for instance, 60,000 refugees here , the Civil War ended 6 years ago anthey have all been given permanent rights to live here... complete madness

Kevin Brown, salford, England

The law should mandate that all women have at least 2 children by 30 or they forfeit a certain percentage of their money each year to those that do.

duane lominac, chicago, il

We do need more babies.

sigge bock, krylbo, sweden

Perhaps the answer is for us to not live so long?

Adrienne, Manchester, England

I would love to be in a situation where I could afford to think about having kids , but I would at least need the security of OWNING a place I could call home ... I don't think that is unreasonable . In fact I would call it responsible . Most of my friends are in the same boat !

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

If a meteorite hit the Earth, David Bond would go through sufficient mental gymnastics to find a way of blaming car s for it. conveniently forgetting that cars usually have a human being in them. Why are we destroying 100s of square miles of rain forest, we are we depleting fish stocks in the sea to the point of extinction, why are we using up finite resources at an ever increasing rate, why are we flooding huge areas for hydro electric schemes. why are we destroying huge areas of habitat and therefore the species in them? The answer is of course not just to make and use cars, but to meet the needs of a burgeoning human population (the REAL hockeystick graph) with 77 million a year (equivalent to a country larger than the the overcrowded UK) being added EVERY year.
China and India with their collossal populations are doing their best to play catch up with the developed world (who are we to say they should not?) if humans have made it bad now, it should be just great in 2050????

Peter East, Grays, Essex.

People equals pollution. The whole world needs fewer of us. The Earth itself will sort the problem out.

m. dearden, pulborough, w. sussex

The scary thing is, my daughter's school is making teachers redundant because there aren't enough children to fill the classes! Add to that, the NHS funding IVF treatment for couples that possibly might have had children if they hadn't been so concerned about careers, or the right time and we're in a ridiculous situation where they aren't enough children around and we're having to pay for people who chose not to have children earlier.

JoE, Exeter,

Emissions and resource depletion are not directly the result of overpopulation. If you removed the 80% of humanity which does not reside in the developed world, chances are the pollution and consumption would continue pretty much as before. But wipe out the consuming developed world and they would plummet.

The earth's population is sustainable, but not if all demand developed-world lifestyles, and the ridiculous epitome of this is the developed world's goal of a-car-per-person. There is no way the world can support 6 billion people driving 6 billion motor vehicles. Currently there are only 850 million and this is already proving unsustainable.

To continue with the present global population (or a greater one), we in the developed world will have to become a whole lot smarter about how we live and what examples we set. Ending our absurd over-reliance on cars would be a very good place to start.

David Bond, Wellington, New Zealand

The Optimal Population Trust and the misanthropic pod-people exhibiting their joylessness and anti-human values on this thread need to understand that humanity's greatest resource is not water or energy but people.

Tony, London,

By 2050 the world population will have stabilised between 9 and 10 billion. There will be almost no poverty or hunger and the vast majority of people will be leading longer, happier and more fulfilled lives. This will happen not through any state imposed one child policy but because of improving technology and because a greater proportion of women will be empowered and educated - and better educated women want fewer children. I really think this will happen but if I'm wrong it will be be for one or both of two reasons. i) the "great" world religions will continue to subjugate women and deny them their academic and economic potential (and they WILL try but I think they will fail!) and/or ii) outdated nation states will prevent the free movement of goods and labour. (and they WILL try but I think they will also fail!). I refer you to the book The 2024 report by Norman MacRae.

Peter Beaumont, Yorkshire, England

Throughout the developed world birth rates have been falling. Since Victorian times family numbers have changed reflecting the survival rates for infants and environmental changes. This is a welcome adaptation as one can correlate the instinctive reaction of breeding couples to the changed circumstances. However, when individuals arrive from under-developed countries, they are met with what must seem like the cornucopia, limitless resources, and their response is to breed prolifically. This is counter intuitive and damaging. On the one hand you have an indigenous population used to the vagaries and uncertainties of existence through familiarity with their environment and new-comers who misinterpret the many essences of existence in such a place, this is damaging. Add this concern to a government that, either ideologically or misguidedly, sees some virtue in a large population and you see only unpredictable outcomes. Maudlin sentimentality is Luddite in a technological age.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

There's no THEORY to global warming. The evidence is there if you are brave enough to look at it. And population growth is indeed the Cinderella topic of the global warming issue. It's been so hard for us to make even small changes to our lives even though the global environmental crisis would suggest that only a fool would carry on the way we have been. Why? Because we are afraid our lives will have to alter too much - we might feel too inconvenienced. Okay, now some of us recycle and switch off our telly at the mains - hurrah. But somehow it's utterly taboo to mention that if you have more kids your car is likely to be bigger, your (collective) energy and resource consumption will be bigger, and your nappy landfill contribution will be enormous. Not complicated deductive reasoning. But way too hard for most of us to allow ourselves to think seriously about; if we did we might actually have to take some real, life-altering responsibility. Much easier to have a clever point of view!

Kirsten, London,

"The cry should go up in Europe: more babies, please" -- Melanie McDonaghon

Why dont you get together with the timesonline author of the 'viagra' article and publish a book. You'd make a great team. :-))

Stanzler, NY, US

As the mother of six children, I would be expect to agree, I suppose but I would add that it is time for wealthy Western societies to be realistic about fertility. The best chance of a natural conception of a healthy child is when the parents are relatively young. I graduated, bred, then kicked off my (sucessful) career at thirty six, by which time five of my six girls were born. We are all living longer so it seems nonsense to risk our chances of becoming parents to clock up a few years behind a desk in our twenties. Besides, the maturity gained from child care makes you better at every task!

Myfanwy Alexander, Llanfair Caereinion, Powys

I want to live in a country where my own people are the majority. Yes, we need more babies in Europe and every traditionally European country and we also need to close our borders to non-European people. If anyone's offended, I don't care

Tim, Tampa, USA

Oh dear Melanie, that was a selfish, ill formed rant. The Optimum Population Trust do have a serious point. Move the clock forward 20 years, to a time when the UK has no oil, gas or coal resources, when the trade deficit is ballooning, when our hollowed out economy is forced to turn to the hyperinflated international market for the very food and energy we need to survive. In that future is a UK with 70 million people or 50 million more "optimum"? A larger population won't be keeping up in gin and cigarettes, it'll be reducing your food and energy rations and living in your spare room.

Chris Vernon, Bristol, UK

Athena, UK. It’s you that hasn’t thought it out. The problem is less that there are too many children born – it’s that everyone is continuing to live long after they have ceased to be productive. Simple arithmetic will tell you that if, on average, 2 people die as two others are born, then the population remains static. And, before modern medicine intervened, that’s pretty much what happened. You are, as am I, someone’s great-great-great grandchild – it’s just that they are no longer alive.
If it is my posting that you are attacking, you should have noted that there was nothing said about the type of people involved. That your husband is olive-skinned, Egyptian and Muslim is irrelevant to the points I raised. Why do you feel the need to raise it? And you have not addressed the primary point I was making. If people do not have children, who will operate society when you are past working? You may put aside money for your old age but what good is that if there is no-on to produce food?

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

Typical hysterical response to very sensible and logical cause. No doubt there are too many people on the planet. The world's population has gone up 10x in the last 500 years. And no, you don't have to worry about your gin & cigarettes (simply not true that population pyramid schemes are necessary to sustain an economy). And no, "Europe" does not need more babies (this is simply disguised racism). And no, no one is advocating forced abortions. But it is a fact that as women become more educated, they have fewer children, and they have them later. Why does this cause anyone concern? This is good for the mothers, and it is good for the children themselves. The most unselfish thing anyone can do is to forego having children. Like it or not, propagation is the most selfish biological act of humanity. Culture and religion simply clouds us to the reality.

Rod, Hayes,

Professor John Guillebaud and his wife have two sons and a daughter. I wonder if they could be persuaded to tell us which one of their children is an environmental liability and should never have been born?

Geoffrey Smith, Manchester, England

Those who say the people concerned about overpopulation should take THEMSELVES out of the human race are not thinking this through! If I killed myself (which I'm NOT going to!) that's ONE less person. But if I stayed alive but had no kids, then hypothetically that's a lot less people. Why?
Not just no kid/s but no grandkids, no great grandkids and so on.
Secondly I'm a white, educated, professional. Have kids you say? We need you?!
BUT I'm married to an olive-skinned, Egyptian Muslim!
So NOW do you still want me to have kids. I mean our kids might you know opress you all! They're FOREIGN!
(and brown! EEK!)
Do you REALLY think it's selfless to have kids and raise them in a world suffering from terrorism and global warming as WELL as increasing over-population? And decreasing resources - all of which YOUR kids may suffer from? (And
if not THEM, then your grandkids?)
And BY the way, DON'T tell me the UK's population is or isn't going up - it's a WORLDWIDE thing.

Athena, UK , UK

Everyone should read America Alone by Mark Steyn.

Phil, Leicester, UK

Whilst understanding that having more children than mere 'replacement' requires should not be encouraged, the absurdity of some of those commenting that people having children should feel guilty cannot have escaped most people. Who exactly will be working to pay for society when those commenters are old if no-one has children? The problem is not the young being born - it's the old refusing to die! If you want to think about guilt, think those who do nothing to ensure there is a following generation to carry on funding society, yet then intend to go on living after they themselves no longer work to contribute.

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

Short term, no doubt the idea that we need more kids to support the wrinklies is sound. A birth rate below replacement is asking for trouble with the demographics the Germans etc presently have. Fortunately, there is a solution. Large scale immigration is demonstrably worthwhile in itself but by their customs and religions, immigrants tend to have large families and will soon be helping us to solve our birth rate problem. I'm not sure Labour's immigration approach was designed for this, but it helps in the short term.

Longer term I have my doubts. Is it never worth even thinking about the size of the population? I we don't, might we have to rely on the catastrophe mechanism (wars, famines, plagues) to make any required adjustments? Personally i believe we should think our way to a sensible view of the longer term rather than suffer the consequences of exponential long term growth.

Colin Forbes, Shrewsbury,

The world's population is currently increasing at about 210,000 per day. Equivalent to the population of Southampton added every day. Since WW2 the population of the UK has increased by about 700 per day. This is the underlying reason for man made global warming, water and land shortages.

How to stop and reverse this trend without people worrying about who will pay their pensions in the future is the problem that politicians have choosen to ignore.

Frank, Winchester,

Those who say the people concerned about overpopulation should take THEMSELVES out of the human race are not thinking this through! If I killed myself (which I'm NOT going to!) that's ONE less person. But if I stayed alive but had no kids, then hypothetically that's a lot less people. Why?
Not just no kid/s but no grandkids, no great grandkids and so on.
Secondly I'm a white, educated, professional. Have kids you say? We need you?!
BUT I'm married to an olive-skinned, Egyptian Muslim!
So NOW do you still want me to have kids. I mean our kids might you know opress you all! They're FOREIGN!
(and brown! EEK!)
Do you REALLY think it's selfless to have kids and raise them in a world suffering from terrorism and global warming as WELL as increasing over-population? And decreasing resources - all of which YOUR kids may suffer from? (And
if not THEM, then your grandkids?)
And BY the way, DON'T tell me the UK's population is or isn't going up - it's a WORLDWIDE thing.

Athena, UK , UK

Amazingly, the population control people are the same ones that also support the unchecked waves of immigration, while bemoaning the lower birth rates.

The real problems people face are less opportunities for employment, less opportunties for education and job training. Our political leaders in the western nations should remember that they are elected to serve their constituencies, which are the people, not the corporations or the elites exclusively.

M. Gaffney, Grand Rapids, MI, US

"If Germany loses the population of the former East Germany within 50 years it will be back to where it was about 30 years ago, and that was about twice what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Hardly a death spiral." ~ John Ishihara, Sapporo, Japan

Wrong.

When a population is growing, it has more young people to perform productive work, and fewer old to support. Conversely, as it shrinks the opposite is true - proportionately more retirees and fewer workers. In fact it is only because the old are living so much longer that our population isn't shrinking faster. It is the shift in age distribution rather than absolute population that poses the greatest risk

Population shrinkage is a serious risk, but sadly less fashionable than saving rare cats, bears and ice. Thomas Malthus was proved wrong by human ingenuity 100 years ago, and he's still wrong today (Google him to learn more.)

Anthony Charlton, Swindon,

When will we concentrate on the needs of people and forget the animals? We are also thought controlling our young. KS2 English longer task this year was a leaflet on saving the environment ( a great yawn to mark )and the results generally showed in the overkill of certain information: the polar bear on the ice cap, how to brush our teeth, walk everywhere(with concessions to trains) and no water in Africa so we should give it to them! When I was a child I worked out that any starving Armenian at my table was welcome to any liver, brussels sprouts etc that I did not want. Last year's shorter task was to save a lizard species ( a far better task as it asked why it was endangered and at least allowed for a point of view: a lot were not the "party line") far more entertaining and creative! There are many sides to every story, but this year the children were almost forced by the task into one view point. Disgraceful!

Carlyle Braden, Croydon, U.K

I'm not suggesting that anyone should feel guilty about having children - but why be greedy? It stands to reason that more people equals more take up of the earth's fragile resources. No-one wants to make sacrifices, but as the old saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it !

We are not the only living beings on this planet - why do human beings think they have God given rights - whatever religion - to multiply themselves - if we keep going the way we are, there won't be any space on this planet for anything but human beings. The beauty of this earth we live on is the diversity of its environment and the other living beings that we "share" the planet with. Give them some space! We have more than tipped the balance against them.

And whilst I don't want any child in the UK to suffer, what about restricting child benefit to the first two children only!

Karin Aston, Huntingdon, UK

The Optimum Population Trust reminds me of an old Peanuts comic strip in which Linus, holding his blanket and sucking his thumb, patiently listens as his overbearing and tyrannical sister, Lucy, lectures him on the need for population control. As she finishes, emphatically reminding him that "the world can't feed this many people," he ponders for a moment, then calmly asks her, "Why don't you leave?"

Paul Kelley, Columbia, SC, USA

What was truly amazing about that report is that they could just have easily recommended restrictions on immigration. It almost seems as if the loons prefer an immigrant to a child. Speaking as an outsider (American), I have the following points to make:
1) Overpopulation: Osama Bin Laden had 49 siblings, therefore you have to cut down?
2) Culture: A child raised in a culture will learn and transmit it better than an adult immigrant. If you want English culture to continue, children are the way to go.
3) Environment: These groups always just point out one side of the equation-- you may use 160 times the resources of an Ethiopian, but you probably produce 200 times as much as that Ethiopian.

Anyway, my message to the English: Go Forth And Multiply!!

Andrew Berman, Tenafly, NJ

Where are you finding your statistics ? 'Couples' ? Which couples?
More babies in Britain are born to the unmarried. Your Social Security ensures that..........

Mary Saunders, Nice, France

The almost hysterical nature of some of the 'anti' comments on here, just re-inforce to me the religious nature of the man-made global warming theory.

We in the west seem to be full of guilt and self-loathing, a suicidal wish to pull down our own society and civilisation. If not by a retreat to the dark ages, with unreliable electrical and water supplies, then by reducing our reproduction till we can't sustain an ageing population.

Be brave! Take a deep breath and look at what we've achieved. The most compassionate, healthy and best educated population ever. I mean EVER.

That's our western values, hard work, suffering and ingenouity that has led us here.

Now have some self-confidence, put your chest out, and tell these pressure groups to clear off and get a proper job!

Darren, Connah's Quay, UK

Unemployment is causing the pension crisis. Unemployment is generating wars. A whole generation is being lost to unemployment. Name a country anywhere with full employment before advocating more entrants to a world which cannot give them the wherewithal to make their way in it.

Mary Saunders, Nice, France

If we have to go down this route (and I'm unsure). the idea of taxing per child is a good one i suppose until you think that it will undoubtably force people onto benefits and the dole queue.

Enforced one child policies will not work in this country - for one thing, can you imagine Islam (for want of a better example) obeying this order? They will spend milliions (of our money) on going to court to cry 'human rights' and religious discrimination' and would then no doubt just ignore it anyway (along with millions of others). What would the government do then, open a home for these 'unwanted' children?

I do feel that better education, condoms, the pill, etc should be made freely available to third world countries and better worldwide education of what we are doing to our planet should be implemented.

Jackie, london, England

The above editorial is extremely irresponsible:

At this present moment there are 6,600,000,000 humans inhabiting the Earth. The vast majority of these humans are impoverished, lacking the basic necessities of life, and suffering horrendous injustice. Britain should know something about these people because a lot of them inhabit countries that your country colonized, exploited, and committed genocide against. By 2050, the human population will reach 9,000,000,000. Needless to say, the Earth cannot sustain such a large population of humans. If humans continue to pollute the Earth, deplete its resources, and damage the climate the potential for a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions increase dramatically. Britain should know something about resource depletion. Your country's great oil fields are declining fast. Within a decade you will need to import your oil, but where from? China and India are addicted to oil, too, and they are a lot bigger than you.

David Mathews, St. Petersburg, Fl, USA

quote {suggestion that in Western Europe, and especially Britain, we should be cutting back on babies, especially among the indigenous population}

ethnic cleansing???

emily, essex,

Who or what are the Optimum Population Trust ?.

Like so many other environmentalist groups, few have heard of them, no one elected them, and yet they desire to dictate to the masses their own ill-conceived illiberal politically correct agenda.

Anthony, London, UK

" Forty per cent of women graduates don’t have a single baby at the age of 35."

Many of these women were persuaded to have abortions at University. How differnet it would be if these children had lived.

Celine, Stourbridge, UK

You missed out on reporting the fact that each new birth in Britain also has about 160 times more chance of survival to school age than in Ethopia. But that's a benefit of stable government, pointedly ignored by most bigoted pontificators.
As for Patricia Hewitt's "One for each parent and one for the state" quip - I don't know whether to class her with Adolf Hitler or commiserate for her lack of understanding of family values. Either way, what is a person of such limited understanding doing in my government, living at my expense. Get out into the real world and earn your own living!

KR, Stockport,

I'm one of those 40% of female graduates who don't have children. I have always been absolutely determined not to breed, and yes, breeders SHOULD feel guilty. Not only is the world already ridiculously and dangerously overpopulated, having a child is the single most irresponsible act anybody can commit, especially in a world as perilous as this. We all have the right to gamble with our own lives. We have no right to gamble with the lives of others - and that is precisely what having children entails.

Jo, Somerset, England

OK, let's stat with water. From now on each FAMILY, can have a fixed supply of water. The same amount for each family, and they can do what they like with it. The can also have as many children as they like, but their supply of water remains the same.
I think that's fair, and will highlight in no time any problems of resources and population.
But of course there won't be any such problems will there?

skeptic, Hants,

John Ishihara should reflect on what's been causing deflation and stagnation in his country of residence over the past decade. It's intimately connected to Japan's failure to breed.

Daniel in London has a point, however. Why should we young workers, constantly portrayed by our elders as feckless and maleducated, work till we're 75 to pay your pensions?

Especially given that the selfishness and nimbyism of our parents' generation means we're frozen out of the housing market and pay vast taxes to provide the elderly with free healthcare.

James, London, England

This whole article argues for increased birth rates, however fails to tackle how we would cope with the increased housing demand, demand on schools, infrastructure and natural resources. Living in the south east we already have water supply issues, what would happen in 20/30 years when the population has doubled!

Also increased population carries with it increased energy demands that are going to come from where exactly? Non-renewable sources like coal/oil etc?

Maybe there are good answers to these questions, but you can't simply state "we need babies" simply because of concerns over pensions.

The debate needs to be had, not to continue to be an elephant in the room.

Stephen, Maidstone,

When the population was 'only' 5 Bn, someone calculated it would be possible for the whole lot of us to stand on the Isle of Wight. Not in great comfort admittedly, but it would be something of an icebreaker. The current population of 6.5Bn can still stand shoulder to shoulder in Greater London. Surely the population problem is not that there are too many folk yet, but they're all in the wrong place. Russia (140m), stretching across 5 time zones, has less than three times the population of the UK (60m). Perhaps we should just have folk spread themselves out a bit.

Jon Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

There are an awfull lot of untested assumptions here : 'Trouble is, increased economic growth also means higher carbon emissions.' Does it? A third world cooking fire provides much more pollution and energy use than an energy efficient microwave or oven.
Remember the little detail that humans have a nasty habit of breathing out CO2 (and Methane as well from the other end). A cyclist puts out more CO2/km than a small car and driver. A runner puts out much more.

If you disregard the much derided obsession with CO2, then pollution, (ab)use of resorces, waste heat and energy consumption (of ALL kinds) are directly proportional to planetary population and very little else.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

If we have to go down this route (and I'm unsure). the idea of taxing per child is a good one i suppose until you think that it will undoubtably force people onto benefits and the dole queue.

Enforced one child policies will not work in this country - for one thing, can you imagine Islam (for want of a better example) obeying this order? They will spend milliions (of our money) on going to court to cry 'human rights' and religious discrimination' and would then no doubt just ignore it anyway (along with millions of others). What would the government do then, open a home for these 'unwanted' children?

I do feel that better education, condoms, the pill, etc should be made freely available to third world countries and better worldwide education of what we are doing to our planet should be implemented.

Jackie, london, England

Isn't it all an academic debate as far as Britain (and Europe in general) is concerned?

Our birthrate is down around replacement level or even below, so our population growth is largely or entirely due to immigration. If having more Brits is a threat to the environment, then the way to tackle it is either a total ban on immigration, or else some rule that the immigrants' living standard (and hence carbon footprint etc) in Britain is not allowed to be any higher than in their (usually third world) countries of origin. Which does Melanie recommend?

Michael W Stone BA FBIS, Peterborough, UK

Perhaps the well meaning utopians from the "Optimum Population Trust" should take a leaf out of their own book and go collectively jump off a cliff. I find the idea that human life is a kind of exclusive club to which we must limit access in order to preserve our nice standard of living pretty sick.

Michael, York, UK,

I was amused to find that Professor Guillebaud has 3 children himself!

Mary, Oxford,

Population control is more an issue in Britain and China than in say Yemen because the former two have a welfare state mentality while people in Yemen must primarily rely upon the family. In both cases there is a disconnect with reality. Think about it.

C. Lyman, Lafayette, US/Louisiana

Whatever the environmental consequences we now have a UK population of 60 million.This is far too high and feels too high to a lot of us especially in the crowded South East.No one should be encouraged to have more than two.The wealthy
can afford to do what they like without any state benefits .Those who can't manage to do without state benefits should not have more than two.But of course we want the educated "Roman citizens" to breed to carry on the values we hold dear.Perhaps the answer is such tax incentives and parental leave that breeding looks attractive.For women children stll tends to mean the loss of a hard one career.

frances , Tunbridge Wells,

If there are less children, then we will not have to spend as much public money on education, childcare, health and other expenditures related to children. That leaves money available to spend on pensions.

I am a woman in my 30s who will not be having children primarily for health reasons. I hear that having a child costs in the region of £180,000 - £250,000 depending on which newspaper article you have read. As my boyfriend and I will not be having two children as many couples do, then we could save as much as £500,000! If we are sensible and put it away in the bank, then we will not be relying upon the state pension anyway!

Reduce the world's population please. Too many people will wreck the environment and only lead to eventual warfare as we grapple for the remaining resources.

MR, London,

Regardless of the arguments about individual countries, if the worlds population as it was in 1950 (2.5 billion) - there would be no worries about climate change, habitat loss, oil supply exhaustion or bio diversity.

Probably far too late now to return to a level that the Earth can sustain for the long term now but shouldn't we try?

David, London, UK

Throughout my upbringing and education (which led to me becoming a professional engineer) I have never once been encouraged to have children, more to say brainwashed out of any such thoughts. The message was clear especially when I started working - pregnant women would be fired and mothers unemployable.

chrissie, essex,

Do you really beleive that children born to single teenage mothers who never go into the workforce or marriage indeed are the one who are going to have a successfull, well earning carrier and will be able to pay sufficient taxes to support uk pensionners??? You must live in cuckoe land. These childen are going to live the same life as theire mothers, relying on state benefit to live a basic life. I am sorry, but not only they'll never support anybody, but they'll be supperted by the taxpayers for as long as they live.

Nevena, Nottingham, UK

How many of the forty per cent of women graduates mentioned above were persuaded to have abortions while they were at University?

Celine, Stourbridge, UK

Honestly - you guys over in Europe are losing your civilization to the Muslim immigrants because you aren't reproducing yourselves and they are.

Honestly - I've mentally and emotionally written you guys off because of this. When our politicians talk about improving our relationship with our "Allies" over things like Iraq etc. I think "Who Cares?"

They aren't gonna be there in 40 years anyway.

Don Wilson, Tallahassee, U.S. / Florida

It's very ominous where overpopulation is transpiring especially, in Africa and Asia. It exacerbates poverty and is very detrimental to the environment, endangered species and wildlife habitas. In the Congo and other areas people are slaughtering gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans and literally eaten them into extinction.

Brien Comerford, Glenview, United States

What happened to choice?!
I'm in my 30's and married but not want to have children. That is my choice (and my husbands) . I do not see myself as been here to please other people or to populate the earth.

If you want to have children then fine. But take responsibilty for them including financial. I don't see why I should pay more tax.

Catherine, Manchester, UK

Melanie M's article is just nonsense! Population control for everybody should be the cry and not just in the West. Europe should limit all citizens, including immigrants and religious breeders to a maximum of 2 children. There should be tax breaks for the childless. No we do not need more people and more expansion. We need contraction for the world population otherwise it's bye bye world

Emil P, Newmarket, UK

Andrea Fitzherbert is right; the problem is not a lack of children, or even an excess. It is that those who can afford to have large families are -in a very broad generalisation- exactly those passengers who conrtribute little or nothing to the gfeneral wellbeing!

Mike Bibby, St Albans , Englad -not EU

It's all very confusing. Melanie seems to be saying that British babies are better (superior?) to foreign babies at a time when the wortld population has gone from 2 billion in 1934 to 6.6 billion today. This suggests discrimination against foreign babies who will eventually be quite happy to come to the UK to fill any gaps. In fact all the latest information says that if a few million Chinese babies (without their parents) were willy-nilly set down in the UK today, they would grow up to be British without any reproductive help from the indigenous population. The British government has long held the view that the only discrimination permitted is between "residents' of whatever origin and foreigners still unluckily beyond our shores.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to stop supporting the people having the large families. Why should people who are working hard and can't afford children have their Taxes used to pay for other peoples children? Or perhaps we should all give up work too. They like everyone else could wait to have children or take resposibility for their decisions. We all have choices and some choose not to excercise them.

adb, rathcooney,

i live in Salford and there is no shortage of very young mothers with one or more small children around here - both white and immigrant. From observing and listening to the white mothers I have little expectation that their children are going to be in work supporting an ageing population. It is not just about numbers.
An item on the BBC website this week highlights the lack of Social Service funding to provide older people with a few hours help each week to enable those who wish to remain in their own homes. Perhaps the proposed shake up needs to include stopping benefits to girls without the means to look after their own babies so that more funding is available at the other end of the scale. More babies might then be put up for adoption and the nurturing they receive may ensure they grow into adults who respect society and are keen to work.

janet Reygan, Eccles/Salford, UK

So refreshing to read an article that doesn't automatically berate women for this issue. Most women I know would love to be able to afford to have children before the age of 35, or to meet a man who would be happy to do the same! Alot of men seem so scared of this - maybe it is the fault of the baby-boomers & their selfish, unfaithful, unhappy marriages (Rod, Mick, Paul?) which puts our generation off....

Victoria, London,

"If Germany loses the population of the former East Germany within 50 years it will be back to where it was about 30 years ago, and that was about twice what it was at the beginning of the 20th century"

Read Lars Hedegaard who states that if German population grew as it did 1900-14 it would have 500 million people today not 80 million of whom 15 million are immigrants

Observer, Oxford, England

How long are we going to swallow the argument that the economy depends on a growing population without considering the logical conclusion? We can't keep expanding forever, so when are we going to bite the bullit and stop relying on a growing population to pay the pension bill? John Ishhara is dead right - this is a government pyramid scheme.

Julian Lyden, Colombo, Sri Lanka

I disagree that 40% of female graduates don't have children because they are having trouble "getting anyone to breed with". Most of these women will have made a conscious decision not to have children, regardless of their relationship status. A lot of women simply don't want to become mothers and now that they have that choice, they're exercising it.

Kate, Newcastle,

one minute we are being told to review our carbon footprint - then they say have more children. those from the third world areas where less people would improve things are the very people who breed without a thought for the environment. maybe in some cultures increasing your numbers is a good strategy for survival or control with weight of numbers (in areas where global warming is not a consideration).

john, perth, uk

"we – I mean, anyone over 35 – are all horribly conscious that
there won’t be enough taxpayers to support us in gin and
cigarettes in our old age"

We - I mean, anyone under 35 - are all horribly concious we must both pay for the over 35's gin and cigarettes and save for our own at the same time (no cigs though, they'll be long banned).


And what caring responsible parent would possibly want a child to live in Britain?!?!?!?!?

JonB, Glasgow, UK

The population of Africa plus the Middle East to Pakistan has increased by one billion (1000 million) since 1950. According to the United Nations - using their low variant - it will increase by another 1000 million before 2050. The figures are 308 million in 1950, and 2330 million in 2050. (For Europe including Russia the figures are 548 million in 1950 and 566 million in 2050)

This must be the greatest, undoubtedly man-made, non-religious event in human history. It has a huge impact on poverty levels, conflict, and migration, and yet it is virtually never mentioned in the media.

Gerald Danaher, Coalville, Leicestershire

There are some seven billion people on this planet. The population has more than doubled since I was born, and trebled since my parents were born. The last thing we need is more humans, in any country. The huge and increasing size of the human population is the basis of every environmental problem we have. Paying people to have more children is short-sighted madness.

Tina Rhea, Greenbelt , Maryland US

With the world population at 6 billion and increasing, and growing understand of the human causes of Global Warming I would have thought it made sense to limit the birth rate - if we do have few young people then controlled immigration will be the answer from poorer parts of the world that still have too many kids.

It will bring social challenges but these maybe easier than the challenges of critical advanced Global warming.

Alan, Spalding, UK

In summary, stuff sustainable development - where's my pension ?

R Bowden, London,

There are three possible outcomes:

1) The population will increase without limit. This is clearly impossible, given that the absolute maximum real estate available is limited to the few habitable places in this solar system.

2) The population will increase up until the point where the human race suddenly becomes extinct. Who's going to vote for early extinction?

3) Sooner or later, we grasp the nettle of population control. And nettles are _always_ best grasped soonest. Better for you to have a small state pension than for your children to have none, surely?

Large families these days are the most extreme example of a society which teaches people that it is good to ignore the negative consequences of your actions, and there will always be someone to either bail you out or be sued.

We could easily re-introduce the needed sense of perspective by, for example, denying access to the NHS to children after the second (at least until the age of 18). It won't happen, of course.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Muslims do not necesarily have a really high number of children in their families. It is interesting that Iran has a roughly similar fertility rate as Britain.

Deepan, London,

The First World War was costly in human lives but the 1917-18 influenza epidemic killed many more people. A similar viral epidemic is almost inevitable before too long and, given modern travel patterns and speeds, will be much more devastating.
There probably isn't very much we can do about this except be on the qui vivre and cope as best we can when the time comes.
More immediately we should be concerned about differential birthrates between ethnic groups which have the potential to destabilise society. Touchy stuff I know, but denying that a potential problem exists is suicidal in the long run.

David Lewis, Slough, UK

at last someone talking reality on the population explosion on the planet.china has not managed even whith it,s one child policy to reduce the population.india is in an even worse state.well over a billion people and the country is smaller than china.we have no choice but too reduce the world population.people will have to work until there 80 if that is the case.we only used to live about ten years after retierment so now we have to extend it .but who is going to have the guts to make the firs move?the west is afraid that we will be swamped by asians and africans who will eventualy take over the world economy. so they won,t face the reality.the planet cannot provide resources for 6,000,000. people.the religions will be against it because they are all political and only care about numbers.we are doomed if we don,t deal whith this.war,s and aids will explode every were.time to wake up and stop living in noddy land.

gerry, brighton, england

What utter nonsense from Melanie McDonagh. What part of 'there are far too many people on Earth' does she not understand? The burgeoning human population is why other species are becoming extinct at a frightening rate, habitats are being lost, resources are shrinking fast and the environment is all but ruined. We need LESS people, not more, and that goes for the intolerably overcrowded UK.

FJ, Sandown, Isle of Wight, UK

The population control lobby seems very ill informed and hypocritical to me. Can you imagine the reaction if, for example, they started to complain that people's life expectancies are increasing. The longer your life the larger your carbon footprint. I can't see this concept going down too well but by their logic (not mine), longer life expectancies surely have to be as bad as there being more people.

Do those "distinguished academics" who are in favour of population control for others ever offer to remove themselves from the human population, to lead by example. Perhaps this is the "Cinderella subject" for very good reasons.

Seriously, I think Melanie makes a valid point about only the very well off or the poor even being able to consider having larger families in Britain. I can't see this changing which could make for interesting times in say 20 years.

Doug Whitmore, London, GB

All in all, the situations are quite different in different countries. When there is the necessity, people will automatically find ways to deal with. For example, China finds its population growth is a burden, so they try their best to control it; and may be in the future(in 30 years) they will have to do the contrary. As Alexander Pope said:' Whatever is, is right."

Jason, Wuhu, China

So the generation that had affordable housing (as well as affordable property) and free university education are worried about their retirement....tough! You havent given a damn about my future - why should I be so concerned about yours.

Daniel, London,

For heaven's sake! I have waited until I'm 36 and can afford a proper home to get pregnant. I agree entirely with the statement that, "Only the super rich and the benefit poor can afford to have more than 2 children." It's highly unfair that I've waited until I personally can support my 'carnal lusts' responsibility when chavs and pikeys around me are producing them like rabbits. And the government, to whom I am paying tons of tax, are giving it all to them who pay NONE!
Grrr...

Andrea Fitzherbert, Reading, berkshire

So those of us who are unable to have children should pay higher taxes to support those who can? Something not quite right there.

ZP, Ireland,

OK, Melanie McDonaghon, so we'll just come and build houses all over your garden, shall we? This is the most asinine article I've read, and your SOLE reason for your total irresponsibility in advocating yet MORE people on this crowded, polluted, 'tottering-on-the-edge-of-ecocatastrophe' planet is so YOU can have a pension in your comfortable old age!

jane , London, UK

Perhaps a more persuasive argument in favour of 2 and more children would be to point out to all those "right on" PCers that unless they decide to breed more, their beloved single child Jasmine (or beloved single child and gay Hector) will grow up in a Britain where she may have to wear the burqua, walk behind her husband and not have the career oppotunities open to her mother. Hector on the other hand will have to hide his sexuality to avoid being stoned to death. But in these enlightened multicultral days, I'm sure they'll be prepared to pay the price for the new religion of the "Environment."

gryff, horsham,

In the interests of fairness, that last comment should also apply to single women.

Lonelyguy, Billericay,

Melanie's little world of her own. The indiginous population of Europe generally is running at roughly 1.5. (2.0 is replacement) I would need YOUR resources of 'characters left' to analyse it fully for you country by country.
Muslims' (disproportionately unemployed) birthrate in Europe is around 3.6. So what you have published is a melange of the two which is entirely what I would have expected of you and your ilk who cannot see you are headed for disaster, and I am not referring to your pension.

Ripsnorter (ex-pat), Almeria, Spain

Quite right, but in addition there's an important religious dimension to this. On average atheists have far fewer children than theists. It is increasingly clear that the mindset of "traditional" secular liberalism (anti-marriage, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia) is something of a collective death-wish.

Nicholas Beale, London, England

I understood this to mean that ethnic minorities were having too many babies and too many were being sponsored by welfare payments.

Since the majority population can only afford large families if in receipt of City bonuses or Tax Credits, it seemed a plea directed at those ethnic groups who have large families in Britain as if they were still living in peasant villages in Pakistan or Africa.

I did not take this from John Guillebaud as anything other than a request to immigrants to this country to reduce their birth rate to the level of the majority population.

TomTom, Leeds, England

Surely, we should be thinking global rather than just in UK terms. Globally, there is no decline in population. Why doesn't Europe start to adopt orphans from the third world? Thanks to our weapon sellers and protective agricultural policies, we have created enough orphans in the third world.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

The total fertility rate in New Zealand recovered to 2.1 in 2005. A contentious article in the NZ Herald on 8 July (available on its web site) made much of the disparity shown by female education. The rate for those with no tertiary education was 2.57. It fell to 1.41 for female PhDs. The article reported the work of an aging professor. He argued that the NZ population was being dumbed down. His solution was to have the pill dissolved in tap water. Pregnancy would then become a deliberate act by taking an antidote.

Actually UN and other demographic projections of declining populations in developed countries make no allowance for women having the same number of children but not until they are older. It is good news that birth rates are recovering.

Brian Reading, Pukekohe, New Zealand

The world's resources are running out -- overfishing in the oceans, fresh water running short in Africa and elsewhere, Western-style energy consumption is impossible to sustain if the entire world starts doing it... And yet we need even more people, because otherwise our pension fund maths won't work out?
Do any of these population-growth idiots ever stop to wonder how those numerous children they seem to think we need are supposed to provide for their retired parents and grandparents, if they won't even be able to house and feed themselves?

Thomas, North Brunswick, NJ, USA

So, to summarise, what we should be doing over the next 40 years is cut our carbon emissions by 50% and increase our population by 50%. Neat .

Helen Barker, Horsham, England

''Each new UK birth... is responsible for about 160 times as much climate-related environmental damage as a new birth in Ethiopia". To see a baby or a pregnant woman and to make a link with 'enviromental damage' is the most twisted and perverted piece of thinking imaginable. Professor Guillebaud should be sacked.

carter, london uk, uk

Three cheers and more for this. Travelling about Europe, I keep wondering - where have all the children gone? Bars, churches, social events- everybody is getting older.

Once went to a conference in Russia. They were all so excited- they though John Guillebaud was attending, until I explained no it was Christopher Gillibrand and that my views were diametrically opposed to his. Once you see people only as environmental recidivists who would have been better not to be born, one has a serious moral problem.

Christopher Gillibrand, Brussels, Belgium in exile

Why make an exception for gay men? They will need other people's children to look after them and generate the wealth to pay their pensions in old age, and they don't pay the cost of raising those children. Tax all those without children on an equal basis to offset the costs of child-raising to those who have children. It is not unfair to those who can't have children, for any reason whatsoever, because they will expect to receive the benefit of children having been born and raised at some future time in our European social model. They will benefit from solidarity in their declining years, let them contribute to it in their active years.

Simon Richards, Brussels,

If Germany loses the population of the former East Germany within 50 years it will be back to where it was about 30 years ago, and that was about twice what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Hardly a death spiral. More generally, the world's population quadrupled in the 20th century and and at best the rate is slackening only slightly. The green revolution bought us a generation, and we may be able to buy another - but eventually the population will stabilise. As global suburb if we are wise and lucky, through food riots and regional famines in a global Gaza if not. Preferring one's own old age 'gin and cigarettes' (I'm 43) to seriously addressing an inherently unstable intergenerational pyramid scheme must be the most breathtakingly selfi-centred opinion I've heard in years.

John Ishihara, Sapporo, Japan