Dear Banjo,

Please re-read my previous post.

I did state that family planning is an essential
element in population limitation, but the strategy
is not sufficient in itself.

As we know there are political, religious and
other ideological influences that effect social
attitudes concerning population limitation. The
Catholic Church, which is particularly influential
in South America - where very high birth rates and
grinding poverty are prevalent almost everywhere -
has always opposed the use of contraceptives.
To complicate matters further, some governments
regard high birth rates as essential for their
nations' economic or political strength. Argentina
banned the use of contraceptives a few decades ago as
part of a planned campaign to
double its population as soon as possible
in the supposed interests of economic
development. Childe launched a campaign in the 1980s
for "a significant increase in population," in order to
ensure "national security." Even Peter Costello, here in
Australia was pro increasing our population.

So, yes, family planning is essential - but it needs public
policies to discourage births as well as the other things
that I mentioned earlier.

Lexi,
I disagree wuth the idea that family plannig cannot work alone in reducing the world population. A birthrate of 1.7 per woman is below the replacement level.

The alternative is that world population is allowed to escalate untill we see more and more people suffering from starvation while the UN and other organizations carry out piecemeal operations such as the World Food Programme, which is merely treating the symptions.

I did consider the religous implications and noted that strongly RC countries such as Ireland, Italy and France have birthrate below the replacement level, so apparently they do not abide by their religous doctrine. I do not see that other RC countries will not go the same way if Family planning means are made availabe to them. Of course it would be advantagous if the Vatican altered its stance.

It seems tha Sth Korea is taking up whaling again because their available fish stocks are getting lower, despite what they say about scientific research. Who are we to deny them of a traditional source of food because it is against our wishes. There are many foods that we would not contemplate but others regularly consume.

The simple fact is that, unless action is taken to reduce populations in countries that are subject to famine and high birthrates, the world soon will not be able to feed itself. I have forgotten how many people die now from starvation, but that is set to escalate and more presure is placed on food supplies.

Iran and Thailand have shown the world that populations can be reduced without draconian methods and that economic advantages for both the families and the countries are the result.

Dear Banjo,

We seem to be going round in circles.
I am not disagreeing with you. You just
don't seem to be getting the point that I
am making - so I'll leave you to your opinion.

lexi,
I certainly do get what you are saying.

You, or your 'experts', are saying there is a need to raise the living standards of undeveloped countries before looking at family planning to reduce populations. Or that birthrates will reduce after living standards are raised.

The Thailand evidence is quite contrary to that theory. Thailand has shown that education in family planning and the provission of the means results in lower birthrates and better economic outcomes for both the people and the country. This then enables the government to spend more funds on social policies such as education, health and so on.

If you can point me to the experts that have a different view than that of the Thailand experience, I would appreciate it.

An example of a successful state attempt at population control is China's, 'one child policy' since its inception 30 odd years ago it is estimated it has resulted in a Chinese population some 300m less than what it would have been without the policy. Although the policy has had the desired effect on population it is not without its drawbacks. The desire for a boy has resulted in an increase in abortions, child neglect and abandonment, and even cases of infanticide to female infants. This desire for a boy has seen 114 boys born for every 100 girls, the natural ratio is 105 to 100.
IUDs, sterilization, and abortion (legal in China) are China's most popular forms of birth control, over the past few years, China has provided more education and support for alternative birth control methods. China provides economic benefits to one child families.
With an aging population because of a low birth rate over a long period of time, the number of births per woman in China is 1.7, compared to the US at 2.1. Couple this with the fact that now there are millions of sibling-less people in China who are now young adults in or nearing their child-bearing years, a special provision allows millions of couples to have two children legally. If a couple is composed of two people without siblings, then the government will allow them to have two children of their own, without any economic penalty, thus preventing a dramatic population decrease.Something India should think about.

Paul,
I have not deeply looked into Chaina's 'one chilf policy' but it is obvious what the intentions are and that it works in reducing population. However there are enough horror stories coming out to make me shudder. Stories of late term abortions and forced sterilizations, maybe ordered by over zealous local officials does little to attract support.

The Iran and Thailand policies do not require tough laws, but rely entirely on education and the government providing the contraception means. It has worked very successfully.

I would rather see our overseas aid go toward family planning programmes than simply providing food relief to areas of need.

The result is less pressure on food supplies, so there is less demand for bush meat, whale meat and other species that need protection.