For the sake of food security, we must address population numbers

On World Population Day, Jenny Goldie reminds us that food is humanity’s most basic and most vulnerable necessity, but reducing the number of mouths to feed remains off the food security agenda.

by Jenny Goldie

As a child, the thought of other children going to bed hungry upset me. Later, I began university studies in agricultural science with the naïve intent of ridding the world of hunger. It was all about increasing crop yields to ensure that the then 3.1 billion people might be fed.

After a year, for some obscure reason, I switched to science. My professor in zoology was Charles Birch, who introduced me to the problems of human overpopulation, largely based on the negative effects on the populations of other species. My focus became overpopulation rather than hunger.

Fast forward 60 years and the two issues are coalescing. Stories of famine are re-emerging, particularly in places afflicted by war, such as Gaza, but in many cases, hunger is associated with high population growth rates. Global population numbers have now swelled to 8.2 billion and increase by 70 million a year, about the size of the United Kingdom. Most of the growth is in Africa; indeed, the 20 countries with the highest population growth rates are all on that continent. South Sudan has the highest rate at 4.65% which gives it a doubling time of a mere 15 years. In April this year, in the lean pre-harvest period, a record 7.7 million people faced levels of hunger, categorised as “crisis, emergency, or catastrophic”. There are many reasons for such hunger that include ongoing conflict and the devastating floods from last year, the latter no doubt related to climate change. Yet, even if there were no conflict and no floods, feeding the average household of 8.7 people would be a burden in a country that, while naturally endowed with resources, is largely undeveloped and thus poor.

Recently, there has been an increase in stories of how climate change is threatening food security. For instance, in this one, scientists are warning that extreme heatwaves may cause a global decline in dairy production. Or this one describes how four-fifths of UK farmers are worried that climate change is ruining their livelihoods. Or this one, on a report that says droughts worldwide are pushing tens of millions towards starvation. Or this, on how food supply could drop 50% due to climate, even in the US where yields could drop 40-50% in all staple crops except rice. Sub-Saharan countries would be hit by large drops in yield of their main food staple, cassava.

And here’s one from the World Economic Forum on sea-level rise as a global threat. It notes that the Greenland ice sheet is now losing around nine billion litres of ice an hour and is “at a tipping point of irreversible melting”. Currently, scientists are expecting an unavoidable sea level rise of 1-2 metres. The rate of sea level rise is expected to accelerate as global warming continues, they say.

In April this year, I travelled around the Mekong Delta by bike and bus. It is the rice-bowl of Vietnam, indeed, of southeast Asia. From a high-rise in Can Tho in the centre of the delta, you can see for a long way in all directions across the fertile land, though not quite as far as the South China Sea which is 100km away. This huge and magnificent delta is critical to the Vietnamese people as rice underpins their diet. It is also important globally because Vietnam’s rice production affects the price of rice on the world market. Yet rice growing is already under threat from salt intrusion from the sea in El Nino years and floods from the north in La Nina years. The whole delta is a mere 84cms above current sea-level. Should global sea-levels rise by one to two metres, the whole delta would be inundated and the rice crop would be gone for good. The 17 million people living there would have to relocate within Vietnam, though with 100 million people, it’s a crowded place and their fellow countrymen may not take kindly to millions of fellow farmers intruding on their land. And let’s not forget the 22 million people living on the Red River delta in the north which, at two to three metres above sea-level, may not be inundated by the end of the century but would suffer from salt water intrusions and flooding as the Mekong Delta does now.

People transplanting rice in a field in the Mekong Delta.

Even without sea-level rise, the question arises, can we feed everyone on the Earth today without transgressing environmental limits? Earlier this month, Michalis Hadjikakou and Brett A. Bryan answered that question in an article in The Conversation, basically saying: “yes, but with great difficulty”. They cited eight changes that would make farming sustainable: reduce animal calories, more productive livestock, reduce food waste, reduce plant calories, increase crop yields, use water more efficiently, reduce emissions intensity and better fertiliser use.

What they did not address was all aspects of the demand side of the equation. Demand comes in many forms: demand for more calories, demand for food higher up the food chain (meat and dairy) but it is also a function of the number of people – of mouths to feed. Even if we made all eight changes in the interests of greater sustainability, they would be progressively offset by large additions to the global population which, as already noted, is around 70 million a year.

Friday 11 July is World Population Day. The theme this year is “Empowering young people to create the families they want in a fair and hopeful world.” Yes, we have to ensure all young people have the means to control their fertility. But we have to accompany that with information about how precarious global security is – about how we are unlikely to feed everyone without transgressing the Earth’s limits if populations continue to grow. Voluntary stabilisation of human numbers has to be a priority. Voluntary reduction of our numbers may have to follow. What we don’t want is widespread famine reducing our numbers involuntarily.

First published in John Menadue’s ‘Pearls and Irritations’ on 9 July 2025. https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/07/for-the-sake-of-food-security-we-must-address-population-numbers/

Published

12 responses to “For the sake of food security, we must address population numbers”

  1. Marc Gillet Avatar

    My view is quite more pessimistic. Two questions remain to be further explored in this publication mentioned by Bryan et al.:
    1/ the effect of a slowing or inversing population growth has apparently not been estimated,
    2/ the impact of the social, economic and political system on production and demand. It seems that the authors assume more or less the continuation of the present geopolitical situation, However, even in this case, one can doubt wether that economic growth and human wellbeing can continue endlessly. Within a liberal market, rich individuals will continue to get even richer, while poor ones will continue getting poorer and in much higher numbers, especially in developing countries. Rich individuals and countries will continue to request luxury food and playgrounds, and to manage agriculture and nature in view of increasing their profits. They may well continue maintaining their advantages through corruption, immigration control and bombing …

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      This is why we need a radical redistribution of wealth.

  2. gaiabaracetti Avatar

    Gaza is being deliberately starved, while food rots in trucks in Egypt. It’s not a very good example of the argument this article is making.

    I read a while ago that the expansion of rice farming in (I think it was) Vietnam significantly damaged the fluvial environment. I know it will be a tragedy for the farmers involved and global supply, but sometimes I think it’s an otherwise good thing if land ends up under water for a while. Same for Italy. I can’t wait for the Mediterranean to flood the Po valley, the worst place I’ve ever seen.

    1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      Be careful what you wish for …

      1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

        It would be a disaster, no doubt. But it can’t be helped at this stage and I’m seeing the bright side. The most hideous, industrial and exploitative tourist spots, that have ruined a beautiful coast, underwater, and we probably won’t be able to afford to build more. Long-gone species might be able to come back.
        Lower Romagna keeps getting flooded, and they keep rebuilding in the same areas. When will we learn?

  3. Dag Lindgren Avatar

    What worries me most is the culture of silence about that we are too many. I made an inventory of what institutions mentioned the Swedish equivalent to overpopulation “överbefolkning”: no state authorities, no provincial authorities, no cities. Thus “silence from above”; and what about from below? nothing from environmental organisations and very weak and rare from the Swedish church. That the major organisations are silent “do not care” both from above and below means that the problem get less attention from others. Thus Mankind underestimates the main problem that we are too many. My article about that in Swedish https://tvartankt.se/Tidskrift/klimat/Overbefolkning.pdf

  4. Esther Phillips Avatar

    There is indeed a complete omerta on the subject. I was barred from commenting in The Guardian because I wrote about it too much. Capitalists want slave labour and enslaved consumers (fashion/smartphones show what easily fooled addicts we are). Religious leaders want followers, Nations want cannon fodder, parents want pet projects/heirs and so on.
    A main problem is, lets for a minute assume Humans are animals and that they are in fact no more intelligent than other animals. Then I believe the rule is “if you feed, they breed”…. It was the availability of food (and sanitation/medicines) that caused our numbers to explode. Horrendously maybe the only thing that will actually bring numbers down is food shortages. Norman Borlaug has a lot to answer for with his “not at all green” revolution. The whole food system became dependant on fossil fuels. Climate change means we have to get away from fossil fuels – I do wonder how that will all pan out. And of course “more feet=more heat”, overpopulation led to climate change.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      People have a lot more children where food is more scarce.

  5. Dag Lindgren Avatar

    Our state church and many others claim that unequal distribution of resources among people is the important problem, not overpopulation. What about that?

    1. Bob Avatar

      How to reply to the church. Wealth in modern terms is just paper. What the church has difficult to understand is how to make food from money. How is money converted to food? The same is with healthcare how is money converted to pharmaceuticals?

  6. […] * Jenny Goldie, For the sake of food security, we must address population numbers […]

  7. […] Bomb, co-authored with his wife Anne, which warned that continuing population growth could outstrip food supplies and strain ecosystems. Although some of the book’s specific predictions proved too pessimistic, […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NOTE: Comments with more than one link will be held in wait and will only become visible on the site after an admin has approved it.

Explore the content and topics covered by TOP, search here

Blog categories
Gallery of infographics – Learn more about overpopulation and environment

Discover more from The Overpopulation Project

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading