E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
How populous could Earth become? Some experts project that the peak population will hit 9 billion in the year 2050.
Some futurists predict that the next few decades will bring about wondrous revolutions in genetics and robotics, leading to resolutions of all the problems that afflict us today. But what if those revolutions don't work?
The darker visions for the next 40 years — widespread food and water shortages, a proliferation of failed governments, millions of "environmental refugees" fleeing to northern countries — came into the spotlight over the weekend at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington.
The year 2050 was the focus for the debate, because that's when experts have projected that the world's population will top out at 9 billion people. The big question is, how much heartache will humanity have to go through by the time it gets to 2050?
Unless current trends change, "by 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable," said Jason Clay, the World Wildlife Fund's senior vice president for market transformation.
"If we don't get food right — where we produce it, and how we produce it — we can simply turn off the lights and go home," Clay told reporters.
Food issues on the rise
So what's not right about food? Based on an analysis of Earth's resources, our planet should be able to sustain 11 billion people on a vegetarian diet, said Joel Cohen, a population expert at the Rockefeller University. But among the current population of 7 billion, "a billion of those are hungry" already, he said. One of the reasons he sees is that humans are sharing their agricultural grains with livestock as well as machines (in the form of feedstock for biofuel conversion).
"We're using less than half of the cereal we grow to feed humans," Cohen said.
African countries are expected to be flashpoints for future flare-ups involving food shortages and populations on the rise, but if climate change continues on its current track, that could bring about an increasingly international crisis. Cristina Tirado, a public health expert at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the United Nations has projected the northward movement of 50 million "environmental refugees" by the year 2020, due to the negative effects of climate change on food security.
"When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she explained.
There's already an increased influx of migrants from Africa to southern Europe — and Clay said he expected to see three or four "failed states due to food prices." You could argue that such a failure has taken place already, in the form of the Tunisian government's recent fall.
"Most of the conflict is going to be domestic," Clay said. "I don't think it's going to be international for a while."
The food fix?
So what is to be done? Clay said one part of the equation is to get serious about reforming agriculture, on a scale at least as big as the "green revolution" of the 1960s. "What we need to do is freeze the footprint of food — and then make [agriculture] more efficient," he said.
That means reducing the greenhouse-gas footprint of the agricultural production cycle, and it also means trimming back on the amount of energy, fertilizer and irrigation required to grow crops. The experts also said the shift toward converting food (such as corn) into biofuel should be reversed.
That's just one side of the equation, however. The solution also has to include methods to slow down population growth, such as family planning education in the developing world. John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University, said there are "high levels of unmet need for family planning" around the world. He cited figures indicating that one-fifth of married women in the developing world have unintended pregnancies, a proportion that goes up to a fourth in sub-Saharan Africa.
The idea of funding international family planning programs has been controversial in the United States, but the experts voiced hope that such efforts would gain more support as the planet rolls toward 2050.
Casterline noted that the best antidote to overpopulation woes appeared to be economic stability rather than misery. "It looks like when things get better, families get smaller," he told me.
Will things get better between now and 2050? Optimists such as inventor/futurist Ray Kurzweil are betting that rapidly accelerating technology will save us, but the population experts say their projections have to account for many factors, including advances in dealing with aging. If the average life expectancy heads toward 100 years by the year 2100, as some project, that would make for a more complicated century. The Population Council's John Bongaarts said some of the forecasts call for a peak population of as much as 13 billion.
"If I had to bet, I would bet on nine and a half billion by 2075," Bongaarts said.
How do you feel about the world in 2050 ... or 2075, for that matter? Optimistic or pessimistic? Weigh in with your comments below.
More on population policy:
- Muslim world's birth rate falling, experts say
- Census: U.S. population growth slowest since 1940
- Technology helps China brace for population growth
- WHO ties population, sex, farming to new ills
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
Ah, the wondrous advancements that will solve all our problems...only even if they do solve the current crop of problems, A) they will create their own set of problesm (robotics?...how about mass unemployment when the robots move workers from mines/factories/shops/etc?) (genetics?...how about limited diversity in the gene pool when everyone wants a "standard" model child and subsequent pandemics); and B) There will be other problems that technology/science cannot even begin to anticipate.
While it's OK to look to the future and solve our problems, don't ever fall for the trap of "we can make it all OK, if only we try hard enough" argument. It hasn't ever worked, and it won't ever work that way. The next generation will have their particular set of crosses to bear. Some will be lingering problems we couldn't solve, some will be problems we create, and others will be created by the next generation.
I don't think most people think about eugenics when talking about future breakthroughs in genetics. They might talk about being able treat a fetus in-situ, so that down syndrome and other chromasomal and genetic maldies can be prevented. Thats a long way from eugenics though. I think most people would rather have a regular baby, so long as its healthy. Preventing disease in the womb would hardly homegenize the human race anymore than it already is. If anything, I'd worry more about the homgenization of our poultry and other livestock. They are becoming so similar that if a large pandemic arose we could be in real trouble as a large chunk of our food dies off.
Wrong. The only way to make agriculture more efficient is with more mechanization. The countries with tractors and trucks produce lots of food. The countries that rely on hands on farming are starving. The statement below pretty much proves my point. That billion that are hungry is because they don't have tractors and trucks and gas and diesel for efficient farming.
I made the shift to being a vegetarian several months ago, and I am glad I did for several reasons. Chief among them is that a vegetarian diet is better for me. This is not my own diagnosis. My shift was at the suggestion of my doctor who pointed out the clear links between our high fat, high sugar, and high calorie diet with diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, degenerative joint diseases, and a host of other ailments. Strangely, he didn't seem to think I would take him seriously. He was surprised to learn a month later that I made the decision upon leaving his office after the first visit. My blood pressure had dropped, my weight had dropped, and the particular condition that brought me to his office in the first place showed signs of stabilizing and improving.
Another reason I am glad I made the decision is that I discovered the taste of vegetables. Believe it or not, they actually taste good when they are not relegated to becoming mere "pan drippings" in a meal where the star is a saturated fat-laden piece of meat that is two or three times the recommended serving size. Things I never even noticed before have become so attractive to my palate that I find that I prefer them to many of my old favorites.
My friends and family have looked at me askance as I live out "my little epicurean adventure," to use their words. It is as if they expect me to be a covert omnivore and a public herbivore. Frankly, I have not missed meat at all since I made the change. I don't miss the heaviness of it and the dominance it exercises at every meal. The scales tell me I must be doing something right because without intentionally dieting, I am losing weight slowly and steadily without pain and with a maximum of enjoyment. I don't eat sticks and twigs; I eat real food, but I just don't eat meat.
Another reason I am glad I made the change is that after having shifted to a vegetarian diet, I began to learn about my undertaking. I was stunned to learn that if the grain which is now fed to cattle and other animals destined for the dinner plate was instead fed to humans, it would be capable of feeding more than 750 million people. That is truly enough to wipe out world hunger if the distribution process can be conquered. It takes more than 30 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of beef and more than 12 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of turkey. The conversion of vegetable protein and nutrients to animal protein is an inefficient process.
Add to that the actual brutality of the slaughter of these animals, a process that nearly everyone who scarfs down a couple of Big Macs could not even bear to witness, and there are plenty of reasons that I am glad I made the change.
Ultimately, I think the world is headed toward a vegetarian diet out of sheer necessity. Most will wait until it becomes nearly mandatory by virtue of the prices that will be charged for beef, pork, chicken, and other sources of meat, and when that happens, the worst of human nature will emerge. In addition, along the way many peope will die of strokes, heart attacks, cancer, and organ failure unnecessarily.
Others will try out a vegetarian approach. What will they forfeit? Meat. What will they gain? Better health, a longer life, a better outlook, and a certain yet difficult to define clarity of thought that seems to accompany the change in diet.
Vegetarianism alone will not solve the world's problems, however, because the benefits of vegetarianism can only exist when there is sufficient diversity of available foods to comprise a healthy diet. To a large degree, the success of vegetarianism can be attributed to the capabilities of making food grown in diverse places like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, and other southerly climes available in North America during its winter season. Similarly, the movement of our summer crops to South America during its winter months is essential for vegetarian success in that region. This kind of interdependence of not just nations but agricultural regions on each other is something that is still not part of the global comfort zone of thought and action. Food distribution systems have to ramped up considerably to make a broad scale vegetarian diet a real possibility, and that means that we as a planet of people have to resolve once and for all how we will create and use energy.
I am strongly in favor of vegetarianism, but I am not an idealist who cannot see the forest for the trees either. So many other factors enter into the picture that require the efforts of people who couldn't care in the least about being either an herbivore or an omnivore. We need engineers, scientists, politicians, teachers, construction workers, and a host of people who can ply their trades toward a goal of making this planet a place where not only people can live half a century from now but also a place where people will want to live. Otherwise perhaps we should be looking at Mars a little closer.
I am very glad that you are healthy and happy and I wish more people in the world would join you in that feeling but I have to disagree with your optimistic assessment. You state that the grain that now feeds cattle could feed 750 million people if it were distributed properly. That may or may not be accurate but I have to disagree with your assessment that it would "truly enough to wipe out world hunger". I would love it if that were true, but I think it's a pretty naive view of the reality. Mainly, I think it's naive because simply having the food at hand isn't always the issue. There are so many factors to "world hunger" I don't think it's sufficient to say that if they had the food the problem would be solved. Other than that one line, I very much enjoyed your comment.
I didn't mean to minimize the problems. There have been multiple instances in which food aid has been sent to various countries only to have it held in warehouses as a kind of hostage to the corrupt political practices of the nation involved. For instance, in some African nations where tribalism is a real force in national politics, part of the population has been left to starve while another segment is fed. In places where one flavor of the same religion is dominant over another, the movement of food can be hampered not by the lack of logistical support but by prejudice.
You are absolutely right that the notion of diverting foodstuffs of one kind to a different purpose and having enough ships and trucks to move them is plainly insufficient to stop world hunger. One has to hope, however, that in moments of desperation people will be willing to discard the baggage of politics, regional alliances, and religiosity for the sake of survival.
Ending world hunger is a very lofty goal, and I join you in hoping it can realized without the need for desperate times. I am pessimistic about such a goal coming to fruition but that won't stop me from participating in all possible measures to effect such a change in the world. I will never argue against world peace or an end to world hunger, but I feel in order to be effective in such a thing we need to first be honest about the reality in which we find ourselves.
rd-2472268, you clearly understand the situation and I hope you take no offense to my comments. I appreciate your views and I am glad we have this opportunity to discuss the issue.
I was a member of ZPG (Zero Population Growth) back in the 60s and 70s when I was in School. All that accomplished was making room for more illegal aliens. If the whole world is not on board, there is no such thing as population control. Even conventional war on the scale of the First and Second World Wars can not reduce the population down to managable levels. Unfortunately, for Mankind, there is only one way to do it and we have the capability, but some say not the fortitude. I think if I know the nature of mankind, we not only have the fortitude, but also relish in this capability.
As Mr. Clay said, if we can't get food correct, turn off the lights and go home. The next step after ridding ourselves of cattle, chickens and pork is for all wild animals to go. Afterall they may eat that blade of grass we would want when we all become vegetarians.
The new mantra is (from the 60s) WEEDS ARE GOOD as you can imagine in more than one way. This is probably why Robert Ardrey in his book "Territorial Imperative" tells us to allow people to get high on drugs. Make them free for the asking. Line them up and help them with the needles. When they are high, they will either die off on their own or be oblivious to what hit them when "IT" comes. Those that are coherent will have the upper hand and adapt.
With 9 billion people on Earth, we would have to be 29% more efficient (productive) to produce the same percentage of food/ to consumers we do today and it is still not enough as you can see with all the stavation going on. Mr. Fingles has that part right.
Mathmatically we can not stop this. What will happen is what Chris said above in the beginning. Nature will take care of herself, if not mankind itself. Why is mankind so conceited as to think he will survive in such a state as having 13 Billion of his kind on Earth? Why would he want to? Long before that happens, someone or something will take care of more than half the problem. After all "Territorial Imperative" is not just a title for a book.
Now, for those who don't like or do like religion, there is someone called an Anti-Christ that will cause a lot of dismay in the world. People of 2,000 or more years ago being good at mathmatics like they were, figured this out already. Mathmatically this fellow (nature?) will come and take care of the situation.
I'm only happy that I won't be here to see it, but I pity my offspring and yours.
(I have to go take my pills now.)
RD, just wanted to point out that cattle and other farm animals do not just eat grain, they also eat other food that are left overs from other food production, also there are free range cattle that eat grasses ect.
Glad you enjoy vegan, its awesome, I am all for people converting to a vegan lifestyle. I myself cannot give up meat. I am a omnivore, I eat meat and vegitables. But that is me. I do need to eat healthier, and I plan too as I am adjusting my diet and running/working out.
I very much doubt mankind will ever get rid of meat though. Its too much a valuable part of humanities diet. This might change with genetic alteration though.
One thing to consider that most people dont is those that have a small yard or patio with enough sun could grow their own produce, if 50% of the world population did this it would do much to reduce hunger and food prodcuction.
I forsee that eventually this will be something that everyone will have to do i n the future once food becomes harder to produce based on the world population.
the over crowding needs to be delt with that is the reason for ALL of the problems we have today. high crime,unemployment,food prices,food shortages climate change these are all caused by a over crowded earth drastic measures need to be taken for this problem to be solved.we cant continue at the pace we are. i call for volantary/involantary abortions of unneeded children this might seem like a horrible thing to be saying but it HAS to be done if we want to have a future on this planet if not it means almost certain demise for the human race and possibly every plant and animal on this earth. over crowding will be the death of us. not a meteor,flood,earth quake,biblical end.my veiws may be extreme in this time and age but wait untill a gallon of milk costs $20 and you have to fight just to get clean uncontaminated water cause industry has polluted it beyond drinkability from trying to keep up with the demand of an overcrowded world.
why worry about all that, time for humans; Is Not Forever..the dinosaur ages proved that..we should very thankful for the Grace which has been.......
I too made the change to a vegetarian lifestyle after watching Food Inc. Horrified at what the corn diet does to live stock and therefore those that eat it, I made the change and my quality of life has improved dramatically.
Just a side bar to the note that cattle eat other things besides corn, including grass. Less than 1% of the cattle population in the US eat grass. Cattle are no longer raised on ranches but in factorys where they never see a blade of grass.
Energy
In Alcohol Week (October 20, 1980), there is a headline "DOE MAY FUND CATTAILS-TO-ETHANOL TECHNOLOGY: SEES LOWER COST, BIG YIELDS". The unsolicited proposal from a Florida Junior College suggests that one cattail crop will produce 1,000-1,500 gals/acre/year, while two crops would bring 2,100 to 3,100, and three crops 3,100-4,700 gals/acre, the higher figure representing more than 110 barrels ethanol per acre. While I believe these figures are extremely optimistic, I would endorse a serious study of cattails as a potential energy source.
Douglas Pratt is quoted in the Washington Star to recommend several advantages to cattails. "Since they grow in wetlands, cattails do not compete for land that could be used for crops or forests, and drainage is unnecessary. Cattails use some pollutants as nutrients.
Cattail farms near sewage treatment plants could clean troublesome nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent. Unlike nuclear power and fossil fuels, cattails do not add heat and carbon dioxide to the earth but recycle them. The plants use the sun's energy and the atmosphere's carbon dioxide to produce starches and sugars through photosynthesis. This heat and gas are returned to the cycle when the cattails are used as fuel. Wetlands are extensive and largely unused.
According to one estimate, the United States has 140,000 square miles of wetlands from Alaska to the tip of Florida. Minnesota is estimated to have 10 million acres where cattail could grow, which theoretically could supply enough of them to meet the state's entire energy needs. Harvesting cattails in strips is compatible with preservation of wildlife and makes replanting unnecessary.
Cattails spread with underwater stems called rhizomes and each year can recover the harvested strips. Cattails are an annually renewable resource, whereas coal, oil and peat take thousands or millions of years to form." (Washington Star, September 4, 1979).
I live in minnesota, and if this is true, minnesota would be the place to do it. The entire land is LITTERED with cattails. And, it would also give us a economy booster. We also have a large amount of water that could planted with cattails too. After all, 15,000 lakes would be more than enough if we can perfect the technique.
I think the problem of food revolves almost entirely with urbanization. A family with a garden that can grow vegetables and room to raise some animals (chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, etc.) is ideal. They have some amount of self-sufficiency. But when you have millions of cities with millions of people and only a few million gardens it takes vast swathes of land to grow them food (vegetables and animals).
I am normally a pretty optimistic person, but when it comes to the future of food and people, I am very pessimistic. I think a certain amount of population will die off and there will be a "culling of the herd", but people are worse than rabbits and a shortage of food and land is not enough to change that. Times are going to get bad and then they will get worse and as the article points out when times are tough we just breed and breed. I find the idea of "peak population" in itself to be an overly optimistic idea. I don't think there will be a peak. The rate of population growth may slow down but I don't think it will ever "peak".
I had a vegi garden once It was roughtly 2 feet wide by 10 feet long on the side of the house, it got half sun during midday, I grew sugar snap peas, carrots, lettace, cucumbers, strawberries, onions(they were small), cilantro, celery, and OMG the sugar snap peas produced so much I had to give them away but they were sooo sooo good and sweet and tasty raw.
the only thing I did was water them 10 min each day and weeded every other week. Very little maintance. I probably grew about $300 in produce(if I bought it all at the store) in a two month period once they got to maturity.
I am thinking of starting another once spring in in full swing
All this talk about FOOD, what about BIRTH CONTROL!? Refugees will flee to northern countries! Then the northern countries better protect themselves; we sure as heck don't need more uneducated baby making voting fodder for politicians to use to perpetuate the welfare state. Why allow people who have ruined their own parts of the planet to move into our part? Isn't it better to help them where they are? i.e. if they want food, insist they stop acting like mindless animals and use birth control. If they want economic assistance, then clearly whatever they were doing didn't work, so insist that along with the economic assistance comes accounting procedures and business methods, etc., that must be followed, and accountability. This libtard notion of "victim hood" is nonsense. Part of improving ones life is admitting that one made mistakes to begin with, that one chose a wrong path, and then listening to the advice of those who have succeeded. To ignore this reality by mindlessly providing food and economic assistance to already failed states will only prolong their downward spiral. This may sound harsh, but life is harsh, and natures way of balancing its ecological systems (via disease and starvation) is even harsher.
Northern countries are you referring to mexico? What about good old USA were everyone is having 3-4 kids? Sorry but our Govt needs to institute a birth limit. Every country needs to do this. The USA isnt special in that it should be exempt.
Yeah, last thing we need is 50 million Americans coming up here to Canada hoping to appropriate our clean water and fertile landscape and universal health care.
True. They'd mess it up in a heartbeat.
People need to stop popping out millions of damn babies.. Specially teens n early 20-somes. Need China's rule of one kid per couple. Solve many o problems right there with just that.
Africa has the potential to be a massive producer of food for the world's people. This is a vast continent and, with modern methods of food production, it potentially could produce more food than the U.S. Plus, with the proper training, people could produce huge amounts of vegetables from small but well-fertilized plots in urban areas.
but what's the real value of more and MORE people on a planet of finite size and resources? No, I don't think producing more food is the ultimate, or even desirable, solution. imho Population CONTROL is the only strategy that seems to make ultimate sense.
There are many huge things that can be done to improve the current world situation, but given time, uncontrolled population will destroy them all. We can largely stop climate degradation and hunger for now by weeding our rivers and lakes and dredging the silt that the weeds have left behind. This will restore "lake effect" rains and stamp out the droughts their lack has caused. It will channelize water flow, so that the rains that come do not cause floods and cholera. We can build more adequate food storage facilities, so that so much less goes to waste. But 9 billion hominids will overwhelm the benefits.
precisely!
Soylent Green is made out of people!!!!!!
Absolutely! 20 to 40 years ago, the consensus population estimates for 2050 clustered around 11 billion, so we are making progress.
Farming will have to decentralize at some point. There is alot of rooftop realestate in cities that could be used for farming. It would not solve the problem, but it would certainly put a dent in it. There are lots of interesting articles on vertical farming. Some are more plasuible than others, but at some point as the price of food and fule to transport it goes up, I think we will see a de-centralization of food production and go back(sort of) to a system where most of the food is produced locally with methods that seem strange to us today.
The entire world could be at 2nd world status or better, if not for logistics and greed. Even counting the admittedly ridiculous waste of 1st World countries like my USA, there are still enough resources around to take care of everybody and still make a reasonable profit doing so.
The problem is, whenever somebody ships food/resources/whatever to certain areas of the world, the product either gets bogged down in a non-existent logistics system (because it is a short-term cost-center to build it properly), or is simply stolen along the way by the greedy.
If the population keeps going up, it won't matter how much food we produce, or how well we distribute it, food & fuel wars will be unavoidable. When they happen, the population will go down considerably, and we may actually reach a sustainable balance. It's too bad that half the people out there won't be around to see it.
mad max
this planet has nothing left to give...with that much population to expect and globle climate change happening we are in a losing war with nature ...better to go tits up and give this planet a few million years to recover and let nature pick its champion to lead the next 200/2000 years.
I do not have the answer. But you do. And it will come to you and your generation in your time. There are thousands of ways to get things done with new ones every ding dang day. And there's only one problem to face . . . okay, two . . . apathy, and adherence to a status quo. Keep on truckin' . ..
This article omits one of the basic ways to control populations and land areas - war. When future populations or societies are faced with the stark realization of trying to feed, clothe, educate and find jobs for their own people, and other populations are infringing on them, there will be wars. And these wars won't be the kind we currently see on TV, with "surgical strikes" and "no collateral damage", but will see the largeast number of people exterminated in the quickest way possible that will still maintain the environment (no nukes, for example) and allow the more powerful society or nation to take over the resources of the defeated in the quickest manner possible.
@Watson. They haven't ruined their part of the earth. We've ruined it for them! It's our emissions that have caused climate changed. Our policies that have disabled them from growing enough food to feed themselves. Our selfishness and greed. Our consumer society. We had better make room for them, they are coming.
There is plenty of food (edibles) in the world. There are 3 factors that contribute to the "shortage" of food in the world.One is greed, no one will willingly give away their surplus for free, especially if they have to pay for transport (like to a starving country). Two, wealthy nations (especially America) are wasteful. They eat & shop "with their eyes", people get more than they eat (or eat too much) and the rest gets thrown away (spoilage from not being used, getting too much and throwing out what's left on their plate). I used to work at a restaurant. You wouldn't believe how much food they throw out, and there are not many places where they donate their leftover food to food banks, so it just goes to waste. Three, you can find food almost anywhere, but would you eat it? Many weeds, insects, animals, and other plants we use to decorate our yards or that are elsewhere are edible, and in other countries they do eat them, but in our culture this is taught to be an unsavory thing to do. (Plus there are certain animal parts that we won't eat that in other countries they do, including the blood. Hmm, that could be sent to them instead of being thrown out at the meat factories....)
So, how do we eliminate hunger? Get only what you will use, don't eat like a pig, donate what you don't use and (this is the hardest one) don't be so picky about what you eat.
I cannot believe the author holds that the world should be a 'Vegetarian' society and forgo feeding livestock or other animals grains, he suppositions too far in that the corporation is the primary design as to who and how many may eat as they now control the majority of foods production in general.
The agronomics of this planet are unable to sustain the 7 billion properly, when oil feeds the final flame and coa; becomes les than viable due to cost to produce or to convert as the population will not have the funds to pay for it then the agronomics collapses, the food pantry closes and the world will have to feed itself as our ancestors from a sengle acre per family per growing season and the abandonment of less temperate climate regions.
Not to worry... As Easter Island's history shows, cannibalism is the answer.
Cannibalism is always the answer, Tom. And now back to asian reporter Trish Takinowa.....
I would like to draw your attention to an article in the "Australian", June 16, 2010 by Cheryl Jones. Also, an article in the Discovery News by Ian O'neill on the 24th of June 2010. They are reporting on a bio-scientist by the name of Professor Frank Fenner of the ANU here in Australia regarding human extinction. Briefly, he is the person who is responsible for the world wide eradication of smallpox among many other notable achievements. He is to be taken very seriously. He died about six months ago, aged one hundred I believe. Please Google him. You won't like the results though.
John Nettleton
Gold Coast
Australia
dejay@tadaust.org.au