He has championed youth achievement and the conservation of wildlife. Now the
Duke of Edinburgh has turned his thoughts to solving the global food crisis.
Prince Philip emerges in a television interview this week as the model royal
“eco-warrior” who believes overpopulation has contributed to the pressures
on the world and that anyone who believes in God should go green.
The duke hints that curbing family sizes may be the best means of keeping the
soaring cost of staple food products, such as bread and rice, in check.
“Food prices are going up,” he tells his interviewer, Sir Trevor McDonald.
“Everyone thinks it’s to do with not enough food, but it’s really that
demand is too great – too many people. Basically, it’s a little embarrassing
for everybody. No one quite knows how to handle it. Nobody wants their
family life to be interfered with by the government.”
Whether Philip, who has four children with the Queen and eight grandchildren,
is contemplating a Chinese-style one-child policy for Britain or other, more
radical ideas, remains unknown.
McDonald, who interviewed the duke for a two-part television documentary, has
pointed out: “If he launches into a flow, it is not proper to interrupt.”
However, some of the duke’s previous observations have landed him in hot
water. During a royal tour of China in 1986, he managed to insult his hosts
by telling a group of British students not to stay in the country for too
long in case they developed “slitty eyes”.
His latest comments will be broadcast tomorrow and on Tuesday on ITV1. The
documentary shows that Philip, 86, became involved in green initiatives long
before his eldest son. He explains how he enlisted religious leaders,
including Pope John Paul II, to the environmental cause. “It seemed to me
that most religions attributed the world to some special creation and I
said, ‘Well, look, if you believe God created the world, you ought to take
an interest in its wellbeing’.”
The duke’s eco-credentials go back to the 1970s when he fitted solar panels to
a private cottage on the Sandringham estate. Although he was well ahead of
the times, he confesses that the panels saved him only about 10% on fuel
bills.
Despite taking the newscaster on a tour of the Sandringham estate in a
gas-guzzling Land Rover, the duke uses a black cab run on liquefied
petroleum gas to get around London.
The use of such transport can have unintended consequences. Hugo Vickers, a
royal historian, said: “On at least one occasion someone has seen a taxi,
gone up and tapped on the window and asked the so-called taxi driver the way
to somewhere else, and has been seen wandering off scratching his head and
wondering if he really has just seen the Duke of Edinburgh.”
Philip, international president emeritus of the World Wide Fund for Nature,
has been passionate about conservation work for many years. He is at pains,
however, to point out the difference between conserving species and the
“huge emphasis” placed on animal welfare today.
The distinction provides him with a defence for more bloody country pursuits,
such as pheasant shooting and fox hunting. “People don’t realise it is the
species that matter – not the individual – from the conservation point of
view,” he says.
“You’ve got to be fairly hard-hearted about it. Conservation is not a romantic
business. It’s a very practical business, trying to ensure as many different
species of wildlife can exist, and which means in some cases controlling
some so the others can have a better chance.”
The ITV documentary has been cleared by Buckingham Palace and the first part
will be screened on the same day that Peter Fincham arrives at the
broadcaster as its new director of television.
Fincham resigned as controller of BBC1 last year after wrongly edited footage
of the Queen was used in a trailer. The film was edited to make it appear as
if the monarch had stormed out of a shoot with Annie Leibovitz, the
photographer.
The row over audience deception reappeared last week as ITV was fined a record
£5.7m by Ofcom, the media regulator, for rigging competitions on a series of
shows, while the BBC admitted that it had kept more than £100,000 from
phone-ins that should have gone to charity.
Last night Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, called on the
Serious Fraud Office and the police to investigate the scandals.
yes there are far to many people in the world 1 billion alone in china. it can't go on at this rate.
Mike, Noerthants,
What an amazing bunch of demographic ignorant morons. Birth rates are dropping like rocks through much of the developed world (Europe is DIEING, you ninnys), and a great many nations of the Third World too.
You're encouraging AND celebrating the suicide of homo sapiens.
Twits.
davis,br, SACRAMENTO, US
Expectations in the developing world almost match those in the developed world... Good job that our "developed world" continues to increase our expectations!!!
Ian, Freiburg,
Yes, the world is overpopulated and with rising expectations from millions in developing countries
William, London, UK
The pollution of the environment is a NET effect problem.
Total Pollution = Pollution Per Person X Population of Earth.
Governments are desperately trying to solve the pollution through means of efficiency of PPP but they need to look at over population instead.
Failure now means war in future.
Kevin Smith, Sudbury, England
Why does the government have ANY say in the officiality of marriage? Nobody deserves any special status as a reward for getting married and having children. It smacks of central population planning.
Rich, Kansas City, United States
"anyone who believes in God should go green" ... As an atheist I don't really understand what God has to do with going green. Going green where you can is just common sense.
Silly me, common sense isn't so common in this country anymore.
Franziska , Sevenoaks, UK
Why wasn't he thinking of this when he was cranking out heirs and spares?
Bruce Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
My husband & I are childfree by choice - as a result, we are denied any kind of governmental financial aid (even when we were both out of a job) & we pay far higher taxes. Americans won't stop breeding until the government stops paying for them to pop out more kids and starts charging them instead.
Janelle F, Las Vegas, NV, USA
There is certainly sufficient food to feed the global population provided grain is not used to feed livestock for meat production. This is an inefficient use of resources. The most ecologically sound and environmentally friendly diet is a vegan one. It is also the most compassionate.
claire davies, cardiff, wales
I don't know if food really is an issue or not in terms of there being enough to go around but if you want to reduce population growth any economist will tell you that the way to do it is clear if not simple.
introduce pensions people trust and families will fall in size.
Michael FW, Porth,
Don't listen to the Duke. If we stop having children, the world will be over-run by muslims and mexicans, who value large families. There is more than adequate food for all. Farmers are paid not to grow certain crops. We just need to become more organized to feed everyone well.
Pat, Yeovil,
There is more than enough food produced in the world to feed every person alive.
The only thing that stops everyone from getting food is, ironically, greed.
Toby, Hastings, England
He is spot on - population is THE problem. Pity none of the so called "greens" have the courage to put this subject on their agenda.
Sean, Bedford, UK
This guy is senile
Why large families.
- Religious beliefs, poverty and ignorance keeping people
from contraception.
- Absence of social support in poor countires means
that peoples' children are considered their 'pension'.
- High infant mortality rates encourage high birth rates
Ray Harvey, Hitchin, uk
The world would have been many millions of pounds richer if Phillip and Liz had decided not to reproduce.
David Chorley, Tulsa Oklahoma, USA
Can you see parents in the UK curbing the number of children when they recieve so much in child allowance.?
Flatroofer, Radnor., Wales
I couldn't agree more - it appalls me that governments and communities and individuals remain blind to the impact that this exponential population growth will inevitably have on available resources. The world is not a boundless resource, and we have to use our intelligence to manage it responsibly.
lorijo, Chatham, Kent
For once this man is right! Earth has reached saturation point for our species. It's time to accept that most of our crises are caused by the fact that there are too many mouths to feed. If we don't sort out the problem then nature will, and we won't have a choice any longer!
Stuart T, Plymouth, UK
The man is absolutely correct.
As oil runs out, we WILL see the population reduce to around 1.5 Billion.
This is what the Earth can realistically support.
I am not a fan of eugenics, but greatly in favour of limiting people to the number of children they alone can support - without benefits
cap, Lincoln, UK
there would be sifficient food for all the world, if westerners were not so greedy. As for smaller families, who will work to pay the taxes to pay for future pensions? If not for immigrants, this country would struggle. There just are not enough Brits to fill all the jobs that need to be done.
Susan Lythgoe, Bolton, England
If everyone would spend more time worrying about themselves, and their own families (things they can change), and less time trying to change things they cannot (Prince Phillip's 4 kids and 8 grandkids), the world would be a better place. What's right for me is not your concern! Get over it. :)
Bud, Chilliwack,
There weren't overpopulation issues when he fathered goodness knows how many kids. All eyes ahead people if you want to make a difference. Jabbing a finger at the past and then using it as a measuring stick for the future is futile.
ricky, london, uk
Its not about whether you love kids or about your 'right' to have kids, its about 'everybody's right' to a sustainable world and to survival of the planet. There is only so much to go around.
Only the selfish want to procreate excessively to the detriment of others - they'll take us all down!
Paper, Adelaide, australia
in countries with worse economies and higher infant mortality will have more children because they will need that many to support them in their old age.where we can afford to have or two or even three children these people dont have the option.how about sharing the royal wealth ..words cost zilch
jim, bristol, uk
the last three paragraphs had nothing to do with the article itself -why does the times have to succumb to scandal-seeking behaviour normally seen in yellow press?
Piroska, Budapest, Hungary
What I'm saying is that more openness to God's procreative intentions rather than seeing ourselves as the great planner is the breeding ground of deep care and concern. There's much evidence to back this up.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
With reference to Father Bryan Storey's comment, I do not understand why we cannot promote right attitudes as well as counting up the children. [And I would say that the fewer children you have the more attention you can give to any individual one of them.]
Simon Mollison, Oxford,
Read between the lines-If you can "afford" your lifestyle, do as you wish. If you are poor, uneducated, and have no way out of your cycle of poverty, you should not breed. "Conservation" today as we know it has morphed from other philosophies such as Eugenics and Darwinism. It's all Spin.
W.Irvin, Redwood City, CA, USA
Perhaps people might have been more inclined to take Prince Phillip more seriously if he had practiced what he is now preaching.But,four children? Well,really!
Rita Cocking, Plymouth, England
We need to be growing in right attitudes, not counting up the children.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I always ridiculed Gore for having so many kids and driving them around in a big "hybrid" SUV despite his message of conservation. If you care about the planet, you must consider your family size, just as you do your house, car, carbon footprint, etc. Unless you need your kids to work your farm.
Shari, Pittsburgh, USA
We have 6 children and we believe in God.
Prince Philip is entitled to his view. Perhaps if we all decided to love one another and cut right back on spending atrocious sums on weapons of war and killing each other,we might find the money to put into growing more crops to feed all.
Myke & Dr.Miriam Rosenthal-English, Füssen, Germany
Eco friendship involves better thinking. Our thoughts only improve if our sexual outlook improves. Birth control through radical self control is where we need to aim, not resorting to cosmetic control which leaves us more open to destructive sexual behaviour.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
to all those people who agree with him (he has never had to worry about lifting a finger to work, or worry about the next meal) lets start with sterilising your family members seeing as your so keen on the idea! lets see how many of you volunteer for that. then turn the royal estates into farms.
rich, braunton, england
Happily, Prince Phillip has the courage to speak out against the Vatican's dictates and doctrines prohibiting birth control.
It is an outrage that no other world leaders have similar courage.
Vynette, Brisbane, Australia
Is the Earth's resources infinite? Climate change, loss of biodiversity and food crisis say otherwise. The best use of resources is not waging wars but funding global affordable family planning to help poor countries escape the poverty trap. See optimumpopulation.org
Simon Ross, London, United Kingdom
If responsible, ecologically-minded people stop reproducing, we will be overtaken by a population that doesn't have the same consideration for others or the planet. It is now a genetic asset to be too stupid to read the pictogram on the back of a condom package! Let's continue to have smart kids!
Monique, California, USA
I seriosly disagree with Prince Philip. On the contrary we ought to have LARGE families. It is only the dead and dying society that seeks to murder the unborn. The Scripture says that Children are blessings, gifts, and rewards. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Melody Seppi, Pixley, United States
Maybe we should start by reducing the size of the royal family who probably use more resources than anyone of us and definately more than anyone in a developing country. Just think of the amount of energy which must go into heating Buckingham palace.
Michaela, London,
One child per family wouldn't really work. Look what has happened this week in China, all those one parent familes have lost their children, who is to keep them in their old age? You shouldn't mess with nature.
Stone, Enger, Germany
He's right. The more people, the more demand for food, fuel, water, minerals, land etc. You can use technology and ingenuity sometimes to mitigate the problem but a smaller population would always mitigate it more. Population is the direct multiplier of the human impact on Earth.
Steve, Swansea, UK
Reducing the overpopulation is often offered as a solution for every problem. But : why do most of us live in towns? There must be a reason. It is because of the advantage we enjoy: a surplus of productivity through sharing of labour.
Hunger occurs in countries with a low population dencity too.
Armin Ulrich, Berlin, Germany
Common Sense triumphs once again. You know, people think I'm crazy when I say that there's too many people. But it's the truth. More people means a greater demand for basic necessities, which in turn puts more pressure on our resources. They deplete faster. A consumerist lifestyle doesn't help.
Sergio, Phoenix, USA
Is that why Prince Philip has four children and eight grandchildren?
Mario, Bickley, UK
The National Socialists of Germany were also big proponents of eugenics!
Food prices are only going up because the parasite bankers at the Federal Reserve, ECB and Bank of England are inflating or debasing the money we use to purchase goods like food.
Mario, Bickley, UK
Earth has surpassed it's maximum capacity of humans a long time ago and we haven't done anything yet. Now we are living in a disfunctional world where the the shallow desires of indevidulas are more important than the future of the specie and the ecosystem on which our existing depends.
Mohamed, elAlouani, Tetouan, Morocco
Earth has surpassed it's maximum capacity of humans a long time ago and we haven't done anything yet. Now we are living in a dysfunctional world where the the shallow desires of individuals are more important than the future of the specie and the ecosystem on which our existing depends.
Mohamed, elAlouani, Tetouan, Morocco
People should be responsible for children they breed. If quantity comes before quality, then do we really need these people? No.
Luke, Bialystok, Poland
Many here claim there's a food shortage, but there are 800 million undernourished in the world, 1500 million are overweight, the Brits throw away 30% of what they buy, and the CAP destroys a percentage of produce to ensure a minimum market price. Global food shortage? No. Bad politics? Definitely.
Robert, Slough,
Increasing food production only ensures more starvation in the future, as more people have enough nourishment to breed and raise children. Start cutting down on foreign aid, localize our food production, and discourage breeding in third world countries, and we can fix this problem.
Pat, Hershey,
Governments/societies who rely on producing over-population and subsequently dispose human matter into other societies can be passively stopped in their practice. No more money and support from western societies for those who create unnecessary human matter.
Individuals rank below civilization.
Xrist, Hvismaar, Germany_corrupt
He has acknowledged one of the symptoms of the wider problem of overpopulation, or 'overshoot': demand for food outstripping supply. Other symptoms include massive bio diversity loss, alarming deforestation rates, global warming and oil depletion. Funny how they're all connected. http://corrupt.org
David, Melbourne, Australia
The world has been over-crowded for long, a thing predicted long ago by economists and science fiction novelists.
The question is what are we going to do about it? It is very good that prince philip comes forth with these ideas, such as a one chilp per family plan, but that's only half the job done
Ben, Haifa, Israel
Quite clearly, if we care even a little for our world, the number of people needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW. The longer it takes for this to happen, the more work our posterity will be left with; and everyone knows the faults in leaving the job for the next man to come along...
Mr. Meyer, Vancouver, Canada
Well its long over due that someone has the guts to stand up and say we must reduce our breeding rate. indeed, whats the point of having kids if only to see them die young;which will happen if we have food and energy wars in future.people must remember that kids cause environmental damage.
adrian bourne, worcester, england
Eugenics would be an effective solution to the obvious problem of overpopulation, and would not necessarily have to entail "inhumane" actions.
R., Halifax, Canada
Sadly enough,
people won't check their breeding anytime soon (especially those of lesser intelligence) and we will all suffer the consequences of their wrecklessness/ unalienable rights.
Gordon Bryant, Scottsville, Kentucky, USA
It's about time someone goes public about this. We're overcrowding this planet and we're surprised to see prices break the roof. As a lot of people say, it's the the absence of food making raising prices, it's the demand on it. The more mouth we have to feed the more expensive it will get!
Eric Syre, Sainte-Thecle,
Oh puh-leeze. First off, the entire world's population can fit into Texas--without overcrowding.
Starvation has to do not with the number of people, but with DISTRIBUTION.
Overpopulation? Average birth rate: 1.7. Needed to break even: 2.2.
Alexandra, Wooster, Ohio
We must limit population. We must make organic life instead of institutional. this cant last for long. more conflicts and enviromental crises are imminent.
Ilija, Cuprija,
HRH is right - left to its own devices our species will consume until there is nothing left. We should not have a choice!
James, Chester, UK
I'm impressed by the sheer innumeracy of the Duke's critics. "We need to keep producing children to support us when we're old". So population will increase for ever? And the royal family's lifestyle and number of children is utterly irrelevant. When were leaders ever expected to be average?
Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,
James Cope: you wrote
Kieran says: "if we were all vegetarian the world could happily support 40 billion people"... Perhaps it could feed that many, though I doubt it (where will all the manure come from with no farm animals?)
People create manure too :)
Jenny, Cambridge,
Perhaps Prince Philip and his inbred clan will personally volunteer to give away their vast illegal fortune while at the same time having themselves all sterilized? Action speaks louder than words!
"Commoner", London, England
We in England most certainly suffer from an excess of elitist, over-privileged and under-productive parasites.
Peter, Walsall, England
Kieran says: "if we were all vegetarian the world could happily support 40 billion people"... Perhaps it could feed that many, though I doubt it (where will all the manure come from with no farm animals?) but people demand rather more of the world than merely food. And happily? Not me!
James Cope, Blairgowrie, Scotland
You should all read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. He can say it much better than I.
Lindsay, Calgary, Canada
Unfortunately he is quite correct.We are exceeding the carrying capacity of this planet.
George, Junction, USA
>>The most natural & beautiful thing in the world,
So it may be. But unfortunately our planet can barely support the 6 billion people it already has. You don't understand this, because you live in London and don't experience poverty or environmental degradation.
John Ainsworth, Prague, Czech Republic
The people of the west have already cut back on children. it is in areas of the east where people are not cutting back on how many children they have as though they were still living in agrarian times. That is where the over population problem exists, and they need to start being accountable for it.
Marie, Boston, MA, US
Philip is right about this, there are beginning to be many more like him. He has the courage to think, to take on new knowledge that modifies what he might have believed before, to act and to speak. Thank you.
helen, Norwich,
This is insane!!
Can't believe how many of you agree with laws to limit child bearing! The most natural & beautiful thing in the world, & u want the government to stick it's nose into that part of our lives too? Why not limit how much toilet paper u use when u go to the toilet as well?
Wake up folks
D, London,
Prince Philip is a eugenics advocate who has spoken of his desire to return as a "deadly virus" to thin the human population on many occasions. His supposed environmentalism is merely a veil for his deeply disturbing and inhumane views on population control.
Paul Watson, Sheffield, UK
Spot on Steve Tea - I'll be impressed if all those urging the rest of us to be more eco-aware actually walked the walk rather than just talking the talk; it's very easy to pontificate and sound good, less easy to actually live by the grand words.
Ruth , Glasgow, Scotland
If it does get REALLY bad, I'm sure our governments will concoct a good plot for India and China, the two most populous countries in the world, to wage war on each other.
Between them they share 50% of the world's population - eliminate them, eliminate the problem.
Jeff, Manchester,
I agree with the Duke of Edinburgh. Having more than one child is detrimental in light of our limited world resources. The problem is exacerbated when a family's children depend on taxpayer money to pay their way. Not that anyone Prince Philip knows fits in that category.
Scott, Kansas, USA
"Four children with The Queen", and.................................?
Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Congratulations, Sir. Only the precious few are saying the truth. All of our ecological problems and their subsequent lowering of life quality come from overpopulation. That is the ultimate problem.
Eugene, heidelberg, germany
There are countries around the world where due to high infant mortality is was wise to have as many kids as you could, Infant mortality is now falling in many less developed countries due to better medical care etc, but cultural practices lag behind hence huge population rises in those countries.
Steve, Street, UK
Sure Mr. Prince. And what do you have to say to certain groups who'd not stop breeding and would rapidly expand at the expense of other groups?
No, we need at least a replacement population among the majority ethnic group here, thank you.
Leon Wolfeson, Oxford, UK
The Duke is correct. Just too many people on the planet. His efforts will draw attention to the need of the planet. Birth control will I feel soon become the big issue as it should be. The church also needs to follow the lead of the Duke.
Jim Wils, Brisbane, Australia
Relentless breeding is incredibly selfish and egotistical. There should be moderation in all things including this. HRH is quite correct.
Watts Taylor, Cincinnati, OH, USA
I will feel happier about his concerns now if I knew how much carbon emmissions, waste, etc. that he has been responsible for in his lifetime.
Ian cheese, london, uk
How many properties and how big is his family? Are we going to see Sandringham turned into apartments for the poor and the land made into an allotment?
steve tea, manchester, cheshire
Prince Philip is right.
I have vented over this issue for years.
More and more humans the quicker natural resources will
be gobbled up - and then?
I don't like to think about it.
Jerry Scroggin, Phoenix, Arizona/USA
As usual, Prince Philip has hit the nail on the head - even though he has left it very late, no doubt hoping that governments would take action before he had to speak out. Unfortunately democratic governments are at their weakest when trying to make voters do anything they don't want to.
Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,
Not bad for a prone individual from an endangered species....
Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts
This is pure rubbish, the food shortages are to do with economics in the west, lack of infastructure, changing weather patterns and wars.
Food shortage has nothing at all to do with population. Indeed, if we were all vegetarian the world could happily support 40billion people.
Kieran, St Andrews,
Over-population? Shame about the four kids. There he goes again, pontificating to others when he does something different himself, just like his eldest son. If he were truly responsible he and his wife would have reproduced just twice, replacing himself and The Queen - and live in one house.
Julia Larsen, Reigate, UK
What a twat. He can say what he wants, him and his family sponging of taxpayers and having a cushy life whilst everyone else works hard. He should keep his mouth shut and get back to lounging around in his massive palace.
Steve, London, UK
Thalia, u say two children per household but the duke has four kids with the queen.
Bit hypocritcal.
Anyhow, just to throw this debate wide open, the current ratio for aging population is: of (20-64) to 55+ is 4:1, by 2030 estimated to be 2.5:1. We cant afford to have less children.
Sujeewa, London,
The aging ratio shows, there wont be enough children to support the elderly by 2030. The duke is quite wrong in his judgements. Food price are going up, not just us havin more children. Bad weather is one reason, no crops.In fact statistics show that people are having less children.
Ignorant duk
Sujeewa, London,
Why is this man being applauded for his comments? He has fathered several children; his family make all sorts of excuses for their bloodlust in pursuing blood sports; their extravagant lifestyles do nothing to alleviate poverty or global-warming. So why is he seen as some sort of eco-expert?
Terry Bedding, Bath, UK
Prince Phillip is both right and wrong. The global food crisis is undoubtedly due to the manhy hungry int he developing workd. Equally, our huge appetities int he west, - and our demand for 'quality' which sees huge amounts of food wasted eac h day - are also to blame.
Chris MacDonald, Sydney, Australa
He's absolutely right.
No more than two kids per family. As not everyone wants kids the population would gradually reduce.
Thalia, London,
Finally - millions will hear what they don't want to - curb your child bearing! Over population will be the downfall of this particular species! and I am not just talking about certain countries I am talking about every human on earth.
Think of the consequences 7 generations ahead if you can.
Annette, Edinburgh, Scotland
Being green has nothing to do with being superstitious, but I agree with the Duke that over population is the main problem in the world today. It's a no-brainer: the fewer people there are, the fewer resources are needed & the less pollution there will be. No family should have more than two kids.
David, Cheshire,
Finally... someone who understands the environment. Keep speaking out Prince Philip... someone has to.
Al, Victoria, Australia
Congratulations!. I wish H.R.H's work on animal conservation had been given more prominance such as the Caspian horse. Prince Philip had suggested, in 1971, that some be sent to England to preserve this ancient breed,.Thankfully a core stock was exported prior to the revolution. Well done H.R.H
Paul, Albury, Australia
I totally agree with Shirley.
Ella, London,
I always thought Prince Philip was great and it's a pity he wasn't given the same leeway as Prince Albert. He doesn't pussyfoot about, and the press often vilified him for it. In his very demanding role, he has remained loyal to the Queen. I'm not a royalist, but Happy Anniversary to both!!
Shirley Bowen, Blackpool, UK
Spot on with this issue [as with many others, Sir
andrew, london,