This comment was just posted by Faustino (a retired Aussie economist, educated at LSE, and was adviser to prime ministers and premiers in Australia) on Climate Etc.

Faustino | September 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm | Reply
And as I commented, “the greatest impact on reduced family size is from economic growth. As Jane Austen might have said, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a family in possession of a good fortune has fewer children.”” If anti-emissions policies slow growth, they will delay the reduction in family size. Anyone advocating both lower emissions and smaller families is self-contradicting.

For those who want to control the world's population growth rate and peak population, here's how (A Hans' Rosling video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

Over and over again in this commentary, we read about the 'education' of women as the main factor in decreasing population growth. This is also Hans Rosling's premise in Peter Lang's link above.

But what we're really talking about here is not 'education' of women, but 'liberation' of women from the patriarchy. When women are released from the patriarchal dictate that they were put on this earth to be, first and foremost, objects of men's desire, before moving on to being men's wives and the mothers of men's children, they race for the exits and stampede everything in their path.

Women in societies that have relaxed their patriarchal stranglehold over women's lives will opt for fewer children, regardless of whether they are well educated or not. You don't need an education to teach you that multiple motherhood is a one-way ticket to eternal servitude and self-negation.

Killarney
And do you equally support men's right to be liberated from the patriarchy, and all its traditional obligations?