Is the problem too many people or 'sustainability'? If so, it makes more sense to look at the 'carbon footprint per birth' than to stigmatise non-White non-Northern mothers and babies as 'the problem'. Birth rates will stabilize as and when a mother (and father)have reasonable expectations that their newborn will live past 5 years and be a productive adult and source of help and support in old age, ie: a 'pension'). Sadly, the death rate of Non-White, Non-Northern babies suggest that nothing can or should change until the silent genocide of sub-Saharan poverty is addressed by the engorged, self-absorbed and fraudulent North. I speak as the father of a white male child and a white female child who live comfortable lives in the Northern Hemisphere with generous health and education provisions. As a family we have also 'adopted' a non-white, non-Northern child via a modest charitable donation. If the entire rich North did the same perhaps people in the South would care what we think!

Andrew, Birmingham, England

Congratulations on waking up and smelling the coffee, Melanie. All this talk of 'women's rights to their bodies' 'right to choose' as if 'rights' were a god, never to be compromised and never to be looked at pragmatically, regardless of the consequences.

A 'right' is entirely man-made - there exist few natural parallels - and most are a luxury, occasioned by plenty. The question is 'do we want to restrict some individual liberties so the world isn't plunged into disease, war, famine and poverty (as ALWAYS happens when populations outnumber resources) or do we want to stick to this generation's Holy Cow of Rights for Everything?'

Put this way, the choice is a no brainer.

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand

Martin's point is valid, but the problem is, "How much damage could be done to the environment by then?" Drowning people regularly panic and drown their rescuers too; waiting for the Mathusian inevitable while continuing to provide the developing world with food, vaccinations, technology etc to maintain these vast populations could prove fatal in the long run, if only because it will be impossible to keep the starving billions from sweeping into civilisation. It's not just dwarf wheat we have given them, but nuclear weapons too...

alan, london,

I do see the possibility of there being 20 billion people by 2100. However, for that to happen there must be no major wars, diseases or advancements that allow us to live where we previously couldn't (Sea, Space, Arctic etc) in the next 90+ years. I think that's unlikely.

Alex K, London,

And who is going to pay for the GNBA--why is everybody else's problem my responsibility to financially support? I support myself, my family, I don't want to lower my ability to do so because a whole group of people have cultural problems that promote population explosion. Nature will weed out the excess--or war will.

David, San Antonio,, TX

Firstly, there is not a one child policy in China. If you have one child, that child can have two children.

I rather warm to the idea of Western Baby Awards (WBA). The global white population is 9%, soon to be 8% and then seven as the huge elderly population dies out. Every white country is replacing its population with immigrants, many of whom are from failed states, failed because the people do not have the psycho-biology to run a Western-style democracy.

Many of our women live frivolous, parasitic lives, reaping the harvest of the sacrifices of previous generations while not contributing to the future. Modern woman, just a few decades old, is already an endangered species since they are not passing on their intelligence genes.

Why anybody would worry about the global population, when all the seeds for revolution and global conflict are being oh so carefully sown, is beyond me.

Eugene, Chester, England

Did you really mean to say “for the world’s most populous nations”, or did you mean “for the world’s most densely populated nations”? Surly density, right? I mean, the most densely populated countries such as the Netherlands needs much more birth control than the USA, right? Similarly, the UK needs much more birth control than any African country. Right?

Or did you REALLY mean that we must control the birth rate of the poor and dark-skinned?! Surly you didn’t mean THAT, did you?!?!?!

Laura Fox, Chichester, Sussex

No one will have the moral courage to limit a popuation in the West, it is just too much of a vote loser and targets working class / immigrant sectionsof the population obviously.
Trying to impose or suggest population control in developing countries while the West consumes the bulk of the resources is not going to get very far either! Hypocritical to say the least.
As always in the past competition for resources such as land, energy, minerals and food will force War upon many regions. The only question is when?

Richard Davis, Epsom,

If you really think China has turned away from coercion in the application of its policy, I'm afraid you simply don't know the facts. Read about the riots in Guangdong over this just 3 months ago. Recently in China, I personally know two women who had to flee their home provinces to have babies. This is widespread in China. The population policy is the most barbaric thing ever devised in history; too bad people in the west want to replicate it elsewhere.

JT, washington, dc

"why not kill two birds (povety and over-population) with one stone by restricting reproduction to those couples who can afford to support their children?"
Because that equates to a moral judgement on who is worthy to reproduce? Your reasoning here concerns me: If you are poor then you have failed ergo you shouldn't be allowed to propogate your flawed genetic material.

Miss C O'Dowd, Sheffield, UK

Jst a longwinded way of saying women should be given more money for doing nothing. I don't buy it.

Redcliffe, London,

I won't bet on 30 billion by 2100. Population growth tends to be self-limiting. We just haven't quite reached the point yet where the limiting kicks in.

Martin Evans, Newmarket, Suffolk

However on the basis of recent Public Service Claims we could anticipate that Awards would have to be awarded to all irrespective of Gender. Otherwise this might be considered to be Discriminatory.

A Statist Bureaucracy might determine that only those designated as State Recruits should receive Benefits.

Digory, Narnia, Scotland

why not kill two birds (povety and over-population) with one stone by restricting reproduction to those couples who can afford to support their children?

Erik, Gatwick, UK

The Global NonBaby Awards idea sounds interesting. I can foresee a problem, though - men. For whatever reasons, men all over the world (and not only in poorer countries) delight in taking choices away from women. What would we do with the men who stand in the way of their female partners choosing contraception? Send them to re-education camps? Fine them?

M Aken, Canberra , Australia

The UN predictions seem conservative to the point of extreme complacency. An increase of 34% in 20 years is equivalent to doubling every 50-55 years. So if the current rate merely continues unchanged, we will hit 10 billion before 2040, and 20 billion well before the century is out. That the rate could increase doesn't really bear thinking about, but it is more than possible, as increasing overpopulation and increasing poverty feed into each other in the perfect vicious circle. Any takers for 30 billion by 2100?

G Adamson, LONDON, UK