OK, so what will work to lower population growth? I think it boils down to two general categories: wealth (population growth being correlated both with the wealth of a society and, within a particular society, the relative wealth of the family) and gender equality. You might alternately label these categories as economics and women's rights.
Wealth: In the past, children were an economic asset. Large families meant free labor, especially for rural people (the vast majority back then). In cities, children could be hired out. Large, extended families provided a safety net against disaster and insurance for your old age. (Hundreds of years ago, I suppose, the wealth correlation with population growth might have been just the reverse, since starvation was always a real possibility and the death rate of children very high.)
But in more modern times, the social safety nets of developed nations have made large families unnecessary. Before Social Security and Medicare, the elderly were the poorest demographic in America. Now, they're the richest. (Children are the poorest.) Child labor laws and compulsory education meant that children became primarily an expense, not an economic asset, especially as fewer and fewer people were farmers (the long summer break for school children was always about maintaining that valuable labor force on the farm).
That's simple enough to explain why wealthier, more developed countries have a much lower population growth (note that this is true even in the U.S., though the figures are masked by immigration), but why would poorer people tend to have larger families than wealthier people in the same society? Partly, I think, it's because poor people still need the safety net of larger families. After all, extra money is a pretty good safety net for the wealthy, especially combined with a good education and valuable personal contacts. Also, poor people can't look forward to getting as much Social Security, and, of course, they're much less likely to have private pensions.
The poor don't stay in school nearly as long, either - often not even completing high school, let alone college. That means that they tend to get a much earlier start with their families. An earlier start generally means a larger family.
But I think there's something else at work, too. This talk by Jane McGonigal is about games, but it included a PowerPoint slide that seems very appropriate here:
Poor people are probably less likely to have satisfying work to do (being either unemployed or employed in less rewarding jobs), and they may have less experience at being good at something (either through less training and education, or just because what they're good at is not valued, even by themselves). They're less likely to feel that they are part of something bigger, too, I suspect.
These are all generalities, and not applicable to every individual, of course. But the poor may have less in their lives, less that seems meaningful, except their children. Wealthier individuals love their children, too, but they probably have a better chance of a satisfying work environment, stimulating friends, and a feeling that what they do matters. Well, that's my hypothesis, anyway. It really doesn't matter much for this discussion.
Women's rights: In general, population growth slows when women have more freedom, and I think there's a lot that goes into this. Education for women means that they don't start their families so early, and decent jobs for women means that they have some options. They don't have to marry the first man who comes along, or even marry at all. With freedom, women can say "no," and they can insist on birth control. Patriarchal societies, where these things are not present, tend to have very large families.
When women have more control over their own lives, birthrates typically drop sharply. It's not that they don't want children, but women generally do the work of raising them (and certainly the work of bearing them). Among men, a large family is often seen as a sign of virility. Well, biologically, men have always been inclined to a "spread the wealth" kind of reproductive strategy that's simply unavailable to women, so maybe giving women more choice just naturally leads to a preference for quality over quantity.
At any rate, if women can maintain control over their own bodies - decide when they marry, have a say in when they have sex, have easy access to cheap means of birth control and can insist on its use, can easily acquire morning-after pills, and, yes, have access to safe abortions, they will tend to keep their families smaller. This is especially the case if it makes economic sense, as I mentioned previously.
So, as it turns out, the best methods to limit population growth seem to be things we should want to do anyway. Maintain a strong social safety net, such things as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Rigorously enforce child labor laws, and work hard to keep children in school for as long as possible. Try to break the cycle of poverty, making sure that all people have rewarding jobs and a feeling of control in their lives. In particular, make sure women can control their own lives, their own bodies, and their own sexuality.
Surprisingly often, people do what's in their own best economic interest. For example, young men are a lot more concerned about fathering children when they know they'll have to help support them for 18 years. In wealthy societies, children tend to be an expense, not an economic asset. So people have fewer of them. It's pretty simple.
Regarding poor people, I hate to even hint that the right-wing are right about anything, but we do have to look at any unintended side-effects of welfare programs. We certainly don't want a "cash for kids" program of any kind. Still, punishing parents by keeping their children ragged and hungry is definitely not the way to go. It would have the exact opposite effect. We need to break the cycle of poverty, not perpetuate it. We need for all children to have a good start in life, and we need to keep all children in school for as long as possible.
Free lunches for school children is actually a great idea (far better than giving the money to their parents, which even the right-wing should realize). But we need better schools, better teachers, smaller class sizes,... just a lot more attention on a quality education for every child. Poor children are almost certainly going to need special help - personalized attention, effective counseling, and cheaper colleges. Again, we need to keep children in school for as long as possible, so they'll be wealthier as adults, with more and better options, and so they won't start their families so early. (And as a side-effect, we'll get a better-educated workforce and a thriving economy.)
These principles should work everywhere, so they should be the basis of our foreign aid programs, too. Unfortunately, countries with rapidly expanding populations struggle to get anywhere. Their economies may be growing, but they can still be losing ground in per capita economic growth. It may simply be impossible for them to do anything without getting a handle on population growth first. And, of course, patriarchal religions will fight some of these policies tooth and nail.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment