One of the issues that many people are reluctant to deal with honesty is population. Not only are some religious groupings violently opposed to any kind of contraception or abortion, the widespread sentimentality towards children and families tends to throw suspicion on those who advocate a voluntary reduction in the number of children as a means to deal with poverty, hunger, and epidemic diseases. To date, only China has taken the problem seriously, but its typically authoritarian solution doesn’t seem to offer an answer other nations would be willing to countenance.

That’s why I was interested in this article by Johann Hari from the British newspaper, The Independent (“Are there just too many people in the world?”). It’s an honest attempt to come to grips with all the doubts and complexities that surround this issue, not just jump into either a pro or an ante position.

So after studying the evidence, I am left in a position I didn’t expect. Yes, the argument about overpopulation is distasteful, often discussed inappropriately, and far from being a panacea-solution – but it can’t be dismissed entirely. It will be easier for 6 billion people to cope on a heaving, boiling planet than for nine or 10 billion – and we will only get there by freeing women to make their own reproductive choices. To achieve this green goal, it’s necessary to mix some oestrogen into the environmentalist palette.

Maybe that is both the best and the least authoritarian approach to population issues: free the world’s women to make their own choices and rely on their good sense not to bring more children into the world than they and the environment can cope with.

Technorati Tags: over-population, food shortage, world hunger, environmentalism, saving the planet, population growth