Birth rates 'must be curbed to win war on global poverty'

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2201090.ece

Birth rates 'must be curbed to win war on global poverty'
Published: 31 January 2007

The earth's population will approach an unsustainable total of 10.5 billion unless contraception is put back at the top of the agenda for international efforts to alleviate global poverty. A report by MPs released today challenges world leaders to put the contraceptive pill and the condom at the centre of their efforts to alleviate global poverty, tackle starvation and even help to avert global warming.

.........

Since the 1970s, when coercion was used in India and China, family planning has become a dirty word among environmental and hunger campaigners. But the report warns that eight UN targets for reducing poverty in the developing world will be missed unless world leaders do more to stop the soaring birth rates.

The group says the UK will have to take on the religious ideology of the neoconservatives in the White House against contraception. The MPs call for an end to the so-called "global gag rule", that was reintroduced by President George Bush.

It has put non-governmental organisations outside the US "in an untenable position" and forced them to choose between carrying out their work safeguarding the health and rights of women or losing their funding from the US.

............

How long can this go on?

that the US of Arse will get a clue. The fundies will have NO part of it though curbing birthrates is the ONLY truely moral thing to do at this point (meaning that is the ONE thing they will NOT do).

Like it or not, the Fundies have our gov't by the balls...so guess what that means?

Abroad, it's pretty hard for the US to curb birthrates. The best they could do is make birth control available, but as for compelling use, that's a different matter.

Domestically, the only reason the population's increasing is immigration. Remove immigrants and their children, and the US would have a net population decline.

Most religious folk, and some minorities, have above-replacement birthrates. But it averages out, with the educated and better off having lower birthrates.

I doubt, however, that the US of Arse will get a clue. I was obviously referring the the US. :)

And I know about immigration and that's a darned good point! If they can cap all the illegals coming here and having huge families of "anchor babies"...but don't GET me started on THAT. I've heard the stats - immigration is DEFINITELY where much of the US population increase is coming from. Same applies too. NOBODY ought to be breeding like that these days. It's IMMORAL. Good point.

The population growth of 0.91% (ie 9.1 per 1,000) is due more to the excess of the birth rate over the death rate, than to net migration.

At the same time, science is making progress in medical genetics and human genetics and many genetic disorders have been identified that can be avoided with prenatal testing and selective abortion.

Is that where we are headed?

After all, many Western European countries, and Japan, have almost no population growth from births in the country (as opposed to immigration). If you look at the fertility rate for England and Wales (first page of this paper, you see the general fertility rate declined from about 90 to about 60 births per 1,000 women 15-44, from about 1965-75 - the first decade in which oral contraception was widely available in the country. The rate has roughly stayed at that level since.

happen in other cultures and ethnic groups.

Even if a society decides to let people voluntarily limit the number of births, should that society encourage prenatal testing and selective abortions?

As a related question, are there any studies that show how effective U.S. programs have been in encouraging people to limit births?

I'm not claiming they are universal - but they are counters to your example of China (and disprove your claim that that's the only way to limit population growth).

I don't like abortion on the basis of a foetus' sex; I think abortion because of birth defects is acceptable.

I'm not sure what U.S. programs you're talking about.

case that they represent U.S. cultures.

I'm talking about U.S. programs that encourage people to prevent pregnancy.

or some US programs to prevent pregnancy in other countries. But since you talk about "U.S. cultures", I suspect you mean US domestic policies - in which case, Western Europe and Japan are more relevant than China.

U.S. multi-culture.

If that's the case, we're quite screwed.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'm guessing this is why the most famous of the great blunders is getting involved in a land war in Asia.

a SEVERE gender imbalance.

Unless there's some study showing that the first-born is usually (and I mean naturally) male, I think the gender imbalance results from something else.

All I'm saying is when a country is overpopulated with testosterone laden males who, because of the demographics have NO CHANCE to EVER channel those urges and drives into home and family :nuke:

It doesn't "bother" me in that by the time this drama plays out, I'll hopefully be long gone. That you fail to see the ramifications of the demographics leads me to conclude that I should leave you in peace.

contribute?

Wouldn't that be a put-down for males? :rofl:

Pardon my possible misuse of words since I'm not an expert in human genetics but I hope my intent was clear, that females could have the "right stuff" society needs for future high-tech economies while male genes may be more suited to destruction.

steady state in a few decades.

In fact, China's population may start to decline which produces new problems as an aging population looks to the young generation to care for the elderly.

That might have been easier in the past when people in China had a special reverence (?) for elders but it might not work with today's Chinese youth which IMO are much more materialistic than in the past.

The notion that current population levels are sustainable is wrong. Nobody knows what levels of human population are sustainable, but it's clear enough that it is much lower than what we have now.