... to think 7 billion people is enough.

[GentlemanGin]

Global population will reach 7 billion this year,

In 1950 it was about 2.3 billion
In 1800 was just 1 billion.

UN projection is 10.1 billion in 2100

Where do we stop ? Or won't we and just descend into conflict as resources disappear ?

Personally I think this is the biggest problem facing humankind yet it's rarely discussed in politics.

Wow some awful comments on this thread about famine etc. Some people are quite naive. I have 5DC. However, we are very frugal and live in a smallish house for our size of family. We rarely go abroad and share a car which my DH needs for work. I don't feel bad about it at all. Dh was an only child and some of our family members don't want kids so we can have their share!!

in Africa we have famine in America we have obessity both will contain the population by killing them off, nature is cruel but it works.

That isn't nature, it's culture.

Nature doesn't work best. Nature is very inefficient at killing people. Millions of people are living at just above starvation level and they continue to do so without conveniently dying to solve the world's population problem.

Nature has actually given us the brains and ability and a world full of natural resources to be able to feed and provide for the whole world but we choose instead to turn a blind eye, saying it's not my problem.

There is no need for anyone to go hungry in this world be it with 7 billion people or 10 billion. Over consumption by the West is causing famine in Africa. Climate change is causing famine in Africa. Corruption and war are causing famine. There is enough food to go around, but we don't share. In the UK we throw away 8.3 million tons of food. Stop consuming so much and we can all live together. Keep consuming and we'll keep seeing children in Africa dying of entirely preventable famine.

Belgo, I said that I think it is horrendous misery and completely and utterly unfair that it is visited on people in the developing world because of overconsumption in the west.. and that there is no way I would want to sacrifice my child for the good of humanity or that I think anyone would or should or that it's right.. and that famine devastated my country and was a horrendous experience that has been remembered for many generations and is still reflected in sayings etc..

My point that you quoted out of context is just that it seems to be something that happens to curb overpopulation and that it's probably inaccurate to have ads that suggest that child death at this level could be eradicated with only positive consequences.

There is a trade off for everything. We have all manner of amazing drugs now that prolong our lives and make many people happy because their loved ones are saved, but the manufacture of some of these has contributed to ecosystems being destroyed in rainforests etc/has affected wildlife habitat/local cultures etc. Of course if my child needed the drugs, I wouldn't give two stuffs about where it came from, but then again, I would probably commit murder to save my child too..

China no longer has a rigid one child policy - we were there a few weeks ago and a couple who have no siblings can have more than one child, it's more to do with looking after aged parents than anything else though.

I honestly believe that we will see apocalyptical change within our lifetime, whether ecological ( man made or natural disaster on a global scale) or war.

It will be the groups we think of as nutters who will benefit, the survivalists and pseudo-militias, plus the so called primitive nations who are already surviving on very little, the technology dependant nations will be wiped out.

For the earth to survive long term, we do need to lose a few billion humans

Piratedinosaur is right. Education, rights and jobs for women leads to fewer children later in life. So aside from being a good thing in its own right it cuts population growth. Global trend is going to be down much like italy now.