http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22779656

Malnutrition is responsible for 45% of the global deaths of children under the age of five, research published in the Lancet medical journal suggests.

Poor nutrition leads to the deaths of about 3.1 million under-fives annually, it says.

Wouldn't we feel good if we solved the problem?

Now let's think of the flip side. If we save half of them, we have over 1.5 million more people to feed every year. And we are pretty sure that the globe is heading for a population crisis already.

Shouldn't we be spending the money on helping people not to have children?

It would be interesting to know if these deaths were centralized in a particular region or evenly divided around the globe. My bet is Africa

Absolutely agree on population control.

The majority of areas where population expansion is highest is where the subsistence farming is also highest - therefore the people there have limited means of feeding the growing population and the more moderate countries have to feed these needy, but less productive, areas.

The World is limited in area, the parts of the world that can be used for agriculture (food) are also limited. We have destroyed a large part of the resources of the planet already - some can be renewed, some are lost forever. A growing population will not improve this situation. The moving around of populations would not help much - a hundred million moved out of Bangladesh, for instance, would improve that country's chances, but where would we put them? Siberia? It is short of people, but the Banglas would die there within weeks, not months.

Take Save the Children and Oxfam out of the equation and most of Africa would fall back to sustainable levels within a decade or so.

But do we want to follow such social engineering theories? Would it be better to have another World War, or several local conflicts? Work up the Tutsi/Hausa tribal troubles again? Put more arms in the Congo? Wind up India and Pakistan over Kashmir?

Absolutely agree on population control.

The majority of areas where population expansion is highest is where the subsistence farming is also highest - therefore the people there have limited means of feeding the growing population and the more moderate countries have to feed these needy, but less productive, areas.

The World is limited in area, the parts of the world that can be used for agriculture (food) are also limited. We have destroyed a large part of the resources of the planet already - some can be renewed, some are lost forever. A growing population will not improve this situation. The moving around of populations would not help much - a hundred million moved out of Bangladesh, for instance, would improve that country's chances, but where would we put them? Siberia? It is short of people, but the Banglas would die there within weeks, not months.

Take Save the Children and Oxfam out of the equation and most of Africa would fall back to sustainable levels within a decade or so.

But do we want to follow such social engineering theories? Would it be better to have another World War, or several local conflicts? Work up the Tutsi/Hausa tribal troubles again? Put more arms in the Congo? Wind up India and Pakistan over Kashmir?

Bloodthirsty type, aren't you, HB? You've covered two of the four horses of the apocalypse; the other two are famine and pestilence. So much the better if we can manage without all four.

Even in England people used to have lots of children (a) because they couldn't help it, and ( so that at least two would survive to adulthood. For example, my maternal grandmother was one of eight, all of whom grew up (conditions were improving in mid-Victorian times), and most of whom had families of their own. She had five children. Fortunately the streak of philoprogenitiveness dried up at this point, and there are not many in the next two generations. Otherwise we'd be everywhere by now!

This is still happening in places like India, Bangladesh, and much of Africa (even my Hmong friends in Nan routinely have 10 or 12 children). But do these women really want to go on bearing child after child? With education, and the necessary contraceptive arrangements, the numbers could be reduced sharply.

The Catholic Church should have a part to play in this. God did say, "Go out and multiply", but this was just after the Creation.... and I don't think He intended increase by geometrical progression. If you're not religious (and the Creation story is only myth-making, anyway), the same thing happened in evolution, though in a less dramatic way. There are natural curbs, and that's where the four horsemen of the apocalypse come in, but we should be able to improve on those.

I agree with you about earlier generations, but now organisations such as Save the Children, UNICEF, Oxfam, etc., seem to be keeping all the ankle-snappers alive without any real pressure to curb the breeders. All of Western Europe was heading towards a balance in population at the start of WWII, but when that was over there was an increase in breeding again (probably to make up the losses) and we had the 'Baby-Boomers'.

Things were settling down again until we got lazy and allowed in many guest workers, or had the flight from North Africa. Since then other ethnic minorities and Eastern Europeans have come to the West, initially breeding faster than the indigenous population, but after a generation or two most settle down to the local norm.

This is not happening in the developing countries, however. The medical advances in the West have also been brought into these areas, thus keeping more children alive and keeping older people alive for longer. But the peer pressure to reduce the size of the family has not yet taken root at all. Having seen the effect in Bangladesh, when working there, I cannot understand the attitude of the government in allowing this increasing impoverishment of the country through it's absolutely unwieldy population. In Vietnam the government face similar problems among the hill tribes and other outlying farming communities, but there is strong pressure to limit the number of children - and it seems to be working.

The world's resources are limited - it is therefore simple logic to limit the number of consumers of such resources. Either limit births or encourage earlier deaths.

I agree with you about earlier generations, but now organisations such as Save the Children, UNICEF, Oxfam, etc., seem to be keeping all the ankle-snappers alive without any real pressure to curb the breeders. All of Western Europe was heading towards a balance in population at the start of WWII, but when that was over there was an increase in breeding again (probably to make up the losses) and we had the 'Baby-Boomers'.

Things were settling down again until we got lazy and allowed in many guest workers, or had the flight from North Africa. Since then other ethnic minorities and Eastern Europeans have come to the West, initially breeding faster than the indigenous population, but after a generation or two most settle down to the local norm.

This is not happening in the developing countries, however. The medical advances in the West have also been brought into these areas, thus keeping more children alive and keeping older people alive for longer. But the peer pressure to reduce the size of the family has not yet taken root at all. Having seen the effect in Bangladesh, when working there, I cannot understand the attitude of the government in allowing this increasing impoverishment of the country through it's absolutely unwieldy population. In Vietnam the government face similar problems among the hill tribes and other outlying farming communities, but there is strong pressure to limit the number of children - and it seems to be working.

The world's resources are limited - it is therefore simple logic to limit the number of consumers of such resources. Either limit births or encourage earlier deaths.

This indeed was why I posted the thread. Our efforts seem to be in the wrong direction. Another country (I spelt it 'cuntry' before correction, which perhaps was not all that far out) which deserves mention is the Philippines, which is why I mentioned the Catholic Church.

I'm not quite with you about encouraging earlier deaths. I think we should leave euthanasia to another thread (its effect is minimal anyway).... in which case encouraging earlier deaths implies war or genocide.

But we should also remember a couplet from A.H.Clough which I'm fond of quoting,

Thou must not kill, but needst not strive

Officiously to keep alive.

Here's the latest from Save the Children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337980/Are-mum-Achingly-cute-rare-monkey-hand-reared-zookeepers-real-mother-stops-producing-milk-alive.html

Here's the latest from Save the Children

Save the Children pic..jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337980/Are-mum-Achingly-cute-rare-monkey-hand-reared-zookeepers-real-mother-stops-producing-milk-alive.html

I'm all for saving the monkeys (except those macaques in Lopburi).

The best way to Save the Children is not to have so many in the first place.