Thoughts on population control

[GothAnneGeddes]

I thought I'd start a thread on this after reading this BBC piece: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15368276

I have issues with some of the rhetoric stated there. Why is it when population is discussed, the fact that the West with its lower birth rates still consumes more resources, is rarely discussed?

Why with all the scaremongering about birth rates is it not stated that with increased industrialisation, better health care & contraception, women are better able to space their pregnancies and birth rates will fall?

There is also the issue of hideous crimes being perpetuated against women in the name of population control, is this just another example of the patriarchy interfering in women's bodies?

Would be very interested in your thoughts?

It's one of those things that sounds good on paper and is actually a screaming bloody nightmare.

I agree with what you've said about births falling naturally with education, better health care, etc.

I have seen a number of articles saying that the western lifestyle is not sustainable, I believe it was mentioned at the Copenhagen summit.

Whilst you are right about health care, industrialisation etc the problem is that to get all nations up to speed or just the nations with the highest birth rates it would take a really long time and also a huge amount of money. Considering the current political climate I doubt a hike in foreign aid would be taken very well by the country.

The problem is money there are many things that could be done but you have to be realistic with what you can do.

But one would argue that the solution is not foreign aid, but for IMF and other such bodies to trade fairly in the first place. Cash crops, tons of dodgy subsidies, unfair trading, propping up corrupt rulers as long as they serve Western interests and so on and on...

All these things mean that less economically developed countries are doomed, but to change this would upset too many vested interests, so it's easier to finger wag about birth rates and sneer (as the BBC article did) at poor people who want large families (without even bothering to state why they want large families).

it seems to me that there are many different aspects to this

1. the number of people in the world & whether the birth rate needs to be controlled or not - who by, where, why & how being very big issues.
2. resources - how best to use & distribute them, and who gets to control that.
3. health care & education
4. money & political control

however, it does seem to be part of the patriarchal myth that women are all craving huge families, and pressuring/trapping men into being fathers against their will. It seems pretty obvious to me that the majority of those men have wanted to have sex (thereby 'risking' father hood) and may actually want to have those children as well.

there is no easy answer to this. we do seem to be programmed to pro-create, even when there is no good logical reason to want kids. so how do we resist that urge?

Well, there has been a long running and, in terms of reduced numbers in the population, scheme in China. And the numbers talked about there are huge - ie impact on a global level.

For the relative consumption of populations is not static - when I was young China was still under Mao and consumption was very low. Capitalist China's consumption explosion was then unthinkable. I should imagine there will be such shifts in the future - it takes decades, but so does the impact of population.

Population control is always the elephant in the room - it's a direct contradiction to the UN Convention on Human Rights in terms of freedom to found a family. Because it does come down, eventually, to enforced control if an actual difference is to be achieved. The reasons for wanting children, and how many children are wanted and how many are actually had is even more slow moving - and after the impact of the first availability of contraception doesn't seem to decrease much. But if your children are your pension, and many children do not survive, then you'll keep having them until you have two or three strapping, family oriented teenagers - it's the prudent thing.

In China, when the Government became involved, it led to fertility quotas, forced sterilisations and forced abortions, plus fines and other sanctions. That was the level of means required to achieve the end.

Without compulsion, the effects will remain uncertain; with compulsion, it is surrendering control of bodily functions to the state (and the Chinese example impacted on women far, far, far more than on men).

Personally, I think this is an area best left to charitable endeavour and bodies such as UNICEF. There is a lot of good work done in this area, and it can readily supported in choice of charities to which one chooses to donate.

Meditrina - I'm going into the realm of anecdote here, but thinking of my DH's family (they live in the Middle East), both his parents were one of 12, each child had about 5-4 children, of their children only 1 or two have had 4, most have had 2 or 3.

So within three generations you've already had a big drop in the birthrate and I don't think that is such an unusual occurrence either.

I read a while ago about the Indian state of Kerala, which has a high rate of literacy, widely available contraception and sterilisation is often offered post pregnancy, now 3 or even two children families are the norm. A google of "family planning Kerala" brings up lots of articles about this, yet it's rarely mentioned in the "Overpopulation Doom!" articles.

Which comes first - the affluence/education or the drop? What you describe is what happened in UK too, and over a similar number of generations.

The change in fertility rates is a result of societal change, not a driver for it.

Agree with GothAnneGeddes, we should be looking at the macro causes of high birth rates rather than lecturing individuals (as we should with most global issues).

And yes, consumption levels are just as significant as the rate of population growth per se, but of course it's easier for the West to lecture developing countries than change their own behaviour.

Did anyone see that story about a Chinese woman dying from a forced abortion recently - it was horrific. I can see there is an argument for tailoring benefits etc according to a country's population policy (hence France paying generous benefits to familles nombreuses, to increase the birth rate) but any type of physical compulsion can never be justified.

Medtrina - Exactly, my thoughts are to get the positive societal changes sorted out first, from which there will be many benefits, although I'd view it not so much as a drop in birth rates, but an increase in the control women have over their fertility.

To me, reproductive justice (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice) is more important then population control.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice

If there was a male pill, that men could take to prevent getting women pregnant the same way that the female contraceptive pill works, birth rates in western societies would plummet massively. I suspect that it would probably be witheld for that reason, it would effectively lead to the end of western civilization.

Is no-one going to mention religion?

JLK2 - I'm not so sure about that. Men already have access to easy contraception - condoms - so surely if they really wanted to ensure that they wouldn't become fathers, they would use them more? It seems that the myth of women 'trapping' men into parenthood is just that - that if men really wanted to remain young, free & single, they would use a condom.

No-one holds a gun to their head & forces them to have unprotected sex, it's completely a free choice. I think the 'she tricked me' argument is just a misogynistic attempt to evade responsibility. I have taught teenagers for many years, and it is frightening how many of them take risks, almost exclusively with the male persuading the female that 'it will be ok'. I think that the same men who won't use condoms will also not use a pill, for whatever reason.

Wicket - what about religion? Which aspects?

I don't think a lot of men in relationships would choose to have children (or as many children) if they had control over it all. Condoms are tricky because it's overt and fiddly whereas the pill isn't.

Some men here (in the US) would. Because it's all "Oh look at me and my fabulous sperm, creating all these fine strapping boys children," and a lot of men who are of a certain type of religious belief (namely Quiverfull) want lots and lots.

The China crap is just awful- can you imagine undergoing a forced termination of a much wanted baby at eight months ? It boggles the mind.

I think that sterilizations should be free, though. I know of people who have wanted one and were fobbed off with, oh you'll change your mind, etc.

I can't see the BBC thing, but I think the reason why people who aee talking about population growth generally talk to and about women is because of demographics - not because they think women are for having children and men against it.

If you want to know what the population trend is in a country you look at the birthrqte I.e survey the number of children the average woman has in her lifetime - if it's more than 2 the population grows if it's less than two it shrinks.

You wouldn't ask the men how many children they have because (A) the answer would be much less accurate than asking women(B) it doesn't matter in terms of adding up the numbers if you are already surveying birthrate and (C) the answers could be all over the place from 0 to more than 20, so you have to survey more people to work out what the true answer is.

Of course men's attitude to contraception, family size, role of women etc... do matter, it's not that population is just about women.

Birthrates tend to fall in most places as soon as women have economic opportunity. Overall population is likely to keep growing for sometime just out of the time lag, once you have lots of young people in a country.

ok, so you look at the numbers of children that each woman has.

then what? because there are times when women are kept from having children, or pushed (forced) into having children against their wills. men also.

having a child involves two people, but much of the propaganda on this issue is aimed at women - telling them that they can have more control, independence, work more, better health etc. All of these things are true, but they are also true for men (to a varying extent).

I am thinking about both poorer countries, and also the UK in the 60s/70s. my mum's generation def. got sold the idea of 2 kids = the right number. I live in the US, and 3 or 4 seems to be the norm, with far less only children than I knew of in the UK. (should look up some stats, I know). so, why are women targeted more than men?

Is it this idea that women are desperate to have endless offspring, or that men are lazy arses who cba to use a condom.

jlk2 - there has been research into a male contraceptive pill. my understanding is that it's harder, more expensive to make, but possible. as the female pill is cheaper & more reliable, then it's the one that has been developed & marketed. again, though, it seems to be that controlling fertility is seen as a woman's job.

there are arguments about this, but it's v controversial

The US birthrate will fall, kickass . Always does during a recession, etc. I actually know far more only children than I used to, but also know far more larger families. So it probably evens out! :) It's rare to see two anymore, seems like it's one or five! I'd like four personally, but I think two biological DC are probably my limit. After that it's fost-adopt or similar.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/ns/health-sexual_health/t/male-birth-control-pill-soon-reality/#.TqdzNZuImU8

science.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm

A forced termination at 8 months should actually be renamed as the murder of your child. The whole idea behind any sort of termination is that the woman has chosen it. If she hasn't it is a gross violation of her bodily integrity. I am astounded that for many years many western nations thought China's population policy was a good thing.

I think it is a well accepted fact that as the rates of female literacy and education and opportunity go up, the numbers of children per family go down. Improving opportunities for girls across the world will be the best way of ensuring they don't have 10 children each.

katandKit: there's a difference between approving the policy - after all, many do think that the world is over-populated and the tone of this thread is that fewer births per women is a good thing - and looking at what implementation actually means, especially in terms of coerced bodily interventions.

Also, the West generally doesn't pay much attention to Chinese human rights abuses, whether or not there is a gendered aspect.

Yes that is pretty true, China has an appalling human rights record against both men and women.

Fewer births per woman is a good thing of course. But you can't force people into it and you can't have a policy that forbids a woman from getting pregnant - something she can't have 100% control over. With better education and opportunities, along with access to family planning, women will make that choice for themselves. As has happened in western countries where the births per woman is below the replacement rate for the population. Three generations ago in this country it was common for women, who didn't have a lot of rights and opportunites, to have a family of 8 children. It's almost unheard of now.

KatandKat - the rate of births might be below the replacement rate but the population of the UK is expected to rise by app 30% in the next 20-30 years (from memory).

so the argument about having lots of kid in the UK to up the replacement rate does not hold. unless you want to stop immigration (which i dont).

also every child born in the west uses far more resources than a child in a developing country (something like 6:1).

so it is important to look at what we do in the UK. i think any benefits (whether you are in work or not) for more than 2 children should be tailed off.

Yes, it is important to look at what we do in the UK. We should be looking at our use and misuse of resources. We don't need to up the birth rate at all. The replacement rate of 2.1 children or whatever it is is not important to us in our current situation. I certainly wouldn't be encouraging people in the UK to be having more, given that other countries in the world are overpopulated. It isn't just about us!

I'm not really sure that people have a third child to get extra benefits. I've never heard a real life example of this. I have read of plenty of people supporting large families on state benefits but I bet they still wouldn't be working if they only had two children! Again, people with better economic opportunities seem to have fewer children on average than those with less prosperous backgrounds.