I think it is important to distinguish between the different method of aids and different causes of deaths here.
Let:
P1 = % of human population who live in tribes and will die in droughts
P2 = % of human population who are children, live in villages/urban areas, and will die without vaccinations/medicine
M1 = Multiplier for P1 (to replace the tribal people who died of hunger)
M2 = Multiplier for P2 (to replace the children who died due to lack of medication)
If we give food to P1 and medicine to P2, the population will be: 100%
If we don't do anything, Earth's population will be: 100% - P1 - P2 + M1xP1 + M2xP2
So basically if M1 or M2 are > 1, the population due to P1 or P2 will rise. M1 might be 0 if the entire tribe dies out. But it could be > 0 if another tribe now takes over the land. M2 is most likely > 1, even as much as 3-4 depending on the location as the letter pointed out.
This letter was primarily addressing P2 population. Sir David Attenborough has spoken out against foreign food aid for P1.
Let:
P1 = % of human population who live in tribes and will die in droughts
P2 = % of human population who are children, live in villages/urban areas, and will die without vaccinations/medicine
M1 = Multiplier for P1 (to replace the tribal people who died of hunger)
M2 = Multiplier for P2 (to replace the children who died due to lack of medication)
If we give food to P1 and medicine to P2, the population will be: 100%
If we don't do anything, Earth's population will be: 100% - P1 - P2 + M1xP1 + M2xP2
So basically if M1 or M2 are > 1, the population due to P1 or P2 will rise. M1 might be 0 if the entire tribe dies out. But it could be > 0 if another tribe now takes over the land. M2 is most likely > 1, even as much as 3-4 depending on the location as the letter pointed out.
This letter was primarily addressing P2 population. Sir David Attenborough has spoken out against foreign food aid for P1.