Comments on: Global Population Control

By: Sophie Waterhouse

Sophie Waterhouse — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:18:14 +0000

Boris, reading this makes it a certainty I will be voting for you in the London mayoral election. There is no more important issue than population growth at this point – it is hard to think of a problem that it is not a key factor in from climate change to housing. The short term local consequences of population growth are dispiriting to say the least. Globally, England and Wales already rank in third place for highest population density; London is in fourth place – both well ahead of India and China. The longer term (25 years) consequences of population continuing to grow are terrifying. One thing seems certain: in the long term population will decrease whether we like it or not. The choice we have is between voluntarily stabilising and reducing it, or billions of people dying in famines and resource wars as the earth is devastated and ruined. And it is not just going to be distant lands that are affected. Britain is heavily dependent on imports and cannot feed itself without them.
Most British politicians seem unable to let go of the fantasy that growth can be limitless. They equate more people with a bigger GDP but a bigger GDP does not automatically mean a better quality of life or even less poverty. They talk of the need for “infrastructure” to cope with the increasing population but this is pie in the sky. If you don’t have enough resources no amount of infrastructure will solve the problem.
The more people who are willing to have no more than two children, the better. Better still right now if a couple just wants to have one. And those who are happy enough not to have any should not be stigmatized. There is a pervasive attitude that if a woman does not want children she must be very selfish, rather than just being someone who wants to explore the other possibilities that changes in the status of women allow. Childfree women and men are not the enemies of parents and we need to work together to create a future for the next generation that might actually be bearable.
Thank you for an inspiring and brave article.

Rate This: 0 0

By: peahen

peahen — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:55:26 +0000

Well done for having the courage to say this, Boris. More power to you.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:37:08 +0000

I’ve come to the conclusion that this would be the result of all life on earth given a chance. Life expands to fill the possiblities available. (Even when the space isn’t so accommodating). So it depends on whether we want quality or quantity of life, and whether we are prepared to accept human nature, or keep it under the thumb of social contract. What would mice do in this situation, I keep asking myself?

Rate This: 0 0

By: igor griffiths

igor griffiths — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:31:34 +0000

Hooray someone talking sense about global warming, with life expectancy having the potential through science to be stretched to ridiculous limits and the compound interest effect on childbirth (more babies = more potential parents). There now must be an acceptance that people all die at some time, nature knows best, this will dismay the professional campaigners and the scientists but thats life (or death) and we must let nature take its course where human life is not sustainable. However creating food mountains while people starve is not acceptable either.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Matthew Phillips

Matthew Phillips — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:21:37 +0000

Hear hear, Boris.
But with 4 kids aren’t you now very, very ashamed?

Rate This: 0 0

By: Lori

Lori — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:47:48 +0000

I hate people who are big environmentalists. . . now that they have their own children. Al Gore is another with a litter who talks about the environment NOW. The “Population Connection” (formerly ZPG) people have been banging on about this since the sixties, and they are RIGHT. How can you have missed this until now?

I have put my money where my mouth is by not having any kids (and government taxes me to the hilt for it with few benefits). Hopefully that will give your FOUR a better shot in the crappy future we are inexorably headed for.

Rate This: 0 0

By: piersy

piersy — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:38:30 +0000

Religious issue? What are you on about? People in the third world have lots of kids because of a host of reasons. Lack of family planning, the lack of a state support and provisions for when they grow older, but mostly because their kids have a hideous mortality rate. (not to mention it’s somethin og a biological imperative, but let’s not get into that)
I don’t think Abraham or the catholic church have anything to do with it at all.

If that was the case we wouldn’t have falling birth rates in Israel and Italy … oh wait!

Religion sticking it’s unwelcome oar in places it shouldn’t isn’t my favourite thing either; but those that blame religion for this are entirely missing the point.

But population control ain’t the answer, a fair and equitable world is, but that’s not economically viable is it.

But if it is to be population control, I suppose we could try the russian method and encourage people to drink themselves to an early death in China, India and Mexico. Hell, there’s not much regulation in those countries, lets choke them all to death with pollution and engineer the odd Bhopal every couple of weeks, that should do the trick.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:38:42 +0000

Captain B I think you are wrong about the green revolution. While population has risen it has done so much less than predicted in the 60s (when they were expecting about 9 billion by now). The mass starvation which we saw then has receded despite population increase. In general technological progress is solving such problems.

I do think differential population growth is a great problem since the growth is concentrated in failed states & cultures & thus likely to make them a growing problem.

To an increasing degree we humans, being able to solve the natural problems are then managing to produce man-made ones for ourselves (or sometimes create non-existent ones like global warming to worry over).

Rate This: 0 0

By: Rory Holburn

Rory Holburn — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 07:59:59 +0000

Elizabeth comments that she is pro life and would not advocate abortion – fine, her choice, but can we assume that she will also turn down any medical intervention in preventing death? If we wish to benefit from the advances in medical science we have to be prepared ot do so in ballance and accept its intervention both in the saving and the preventing of lives.

Personaly I would like to see thoes who refuse to use abortion, for themselves or others, denied access to the other benefits of the medical service. I would like to put an end to thier hypocrytical absue of the gifts that science, or God (your choice, has given us.

To pick and chooose only thoes abilities that make us individualy comfy, whilst taking no resposnibility for a ballanced impact, is a sure sign of a barbaric lack of civility.

Rate This: 0 0

By: crystal c

crystal c — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:59:27 +0000

I think I agree with Boris on this one. With more and more people, the levels of intolerance will also grow as everyone jostles for their own space.

Rate This: 0 0