It's always 'blame poor'
I should like to respond to the writers who disagree with me about population growth.
Gerald Danaher ("Population growth key to widespread hunger in the world," Mailbox, February 9) said that "in countries that have controlled their growth there is little hunger".
Western Europe has never suffered the prolonged and extreme hunger of the Third World – and we had no family planning before the 1960s!
Mr Danaher links, without any evidence, hunger and civil unrest in the developing world to the increase in population.
Does he really mean to say these problems did not exist before the glorious advent of contraception?
Mark Jacques ("Do not be blind to arguments", Mailbox, February 9) accuses me of making spurious arguments about overpopulation.
It was the world's leading authorities on food distribution whose arguments I proposed.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has also said "Africa is better placed today to achieve rapid development in agriculture ... (due to) rapid economic, population and urban growth providing diverse and ample domestic markets, favourable domestic policy environments; ... increased foreign and domestic investment in agriculture; and the use of new technologies".
Elizabeth Allison ("We are relying on food reserves", Mailbox, February 9) just links all the modern horrors of the planet to there being too many people.
Well, why not? Let's ignore despotic individuals and regimes and greed.
Too many babies being born to the poor are the real problem.
Population alarmists will rarely be heard expressing a readiness to put their own lives aside for the good of the planet. It's always someone else who has to go. And it's always the poorest.
Francisca Martinez, Leicester.