Stop African babies, save the planet

[Vanguard1917]

The British Malthusian organisation Optimum Population Trust (OPT) argues that there are too many African people around to be sustainable, and the mainstream Western intellengentsia responds sympathetically. This article looks at how Western environmentalists are trying to blackmail and effectively force African women into not having children.

--------------------------------

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/5/1/1241189505313/Babies-rest-at-the-Poupon-001.jpg


OPT: Save the Planet by Preventing African Births [Brendan O’Neill]

At my old Catholic school, religious do-gooders used to ask us for a penny to “sponsor a black baby.” Now eco-do-gooders want our pennies to prevent black babies from being born.

Rushing to the front of the race for the prize of Most Vomit-Inducing Environmental Initiative Ever Devised, the UK’s Optimum Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/) — which counts such grandees as David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt among its supporters — has just launched PopOffsets (http://www.popoffsets.com/index.php). This quirkily named campaign is actually deeply sinister: It invites well-off Westerners to offset their carbon emissions (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFiNGVlMTBlOGI1N2U2OGMzZmI0ZTRkYjFmYWNhNzA=#) by paying for poor people in the Third World to stop procreating.

In short, if you feel bad about your CO2-emitting jaunt to Barbados, or the new Ferrari you just splurged on, then simply give some money to a charity which helps to “convince” Third World women not to have children, and — presto! — the carbon saved by having one less black child in the world will put your guilt-ridden mind at rest.

The Optimum Population Trust is a creepy Malthusian outfit made up of Lords, Ladies, and Sirs who all believe that the world’s problems are caused by “too many people.” It recently carried out a cost-benefit analysis of the best way to tackle global warming and “discovered” (I prefer the word “decided”) that every £4 spent on contraception saves one ton of CO2 from being added to the environment, whereas you would need to spend £8 on tree-planting, £15 on wind power (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFiNGVlMTBlOGI1N2U2OGMzZmI0ZTRkYjFmYWNhNzA=#), £31 on solar energy, and £56 on hybrid vehicle technology to realize the same carbon savings.

How can a mere £4 on condoms save one ton of carbon? Well, it prevents more people from being born, and in the eyes of the OPT, people are nothing more than carbon emitters and polluters — filthy, destructive, toxic beings. As its new PopOffsets website says, next to a picture of lots and lots of stick men and a counter telling you how many people were born while you were visiting the website (3,153 while I was there), “More people = more emissions. Rapid population growth is a major contributor (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFiNGVlMTBlOGI1N2U2OGMzZmI0ZTRkYjFmYWNhNzA=#) to global warming.”

So you click on the PopOffsets Calculator (http://www.popoffsets.com/calculator_individuals.php), tell it how much carbon you have emitted and give your carbon emissions a title (something like “Summer Holiday 2009,” it suggests), and then it tells you how much money you must donate (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFiNGVlMTBlOGI1N2U2OGMzZmI0ZTRkYjFmYWNhNzA=#) to baby-blocking initiatives overseas. For example, if you fly round-trip from London to Sydney — which emits ten tons of carbon — you must pay around £40 ($70) and help prevent the birth of one child in Kenya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-climate-change). Visa and Mastercard accepted!

This is how the value of human life is calculated by climate-change alarmists. A baby in Kenya is equal to ten tons of carbon, or one Londoner’s holiday in Australia. It has no more value than that, no intrinsic worth, no moral or cultural or human meaning; it is simply reduced to a bargaining chip in some wealthy Westerner’s desire to absolve himself of eco-guilt.

This odious campaign — and the relentless rise of neo-Malthusianism more broadly — has two devastating impacts. First it presents fixable social problems, such as poverty and global inequality, as demographic problems, problems of overpopulation. So in keeping with every population scaremonger from Thomas Malthus to Paul Ehrlich, it shifts the blame from society, with its failure to eliminate hunger or to eradicate pollution, and heaps it instead on to people — and, in this instance, on to the poorest people.

The Guardian’s deeply sympathetic report on PopOffsets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-climate-change) was illustrated with a picture of black babies, twelve of them, lying on a huge bed like the useless little beings that they allegedly are, symbolic of those who are apparently doing most to destroy this green and pleasant world of ours: the poor, the feckless, the fecund. The representation of social problems as problems of reproductive “irresponsibility” makes it harder to have an open, meaningful debate about how to take society forward; the focus becomes how to stop people from breeding rather than how to pursue progress.

And second, neo-Malthusianism has a seriously detrimental impact on Third World women’s freedom and autonomy. The most glaringly disingenuous thing about PopOffsets is the OPT’s claim that it is merely helping women to deal with unwanted pregnancies; it is simply providing much-needed reproductive services to the poor of the world. It even uses feminist-sounding lingo to justify its campaign, arguing that it wants to use “education and equal rights” to “empower women.”

In truth, when you promote condom use in the Third World in the most scaremongering terms imaginable, as the only sane and scientific way to prevent an apocalypse, as the only thing that can guarantee the safety of the planet and of future generations, then you are not promoting freedom and choice; you are using blackmail — emotional, political, and financial blackmail — to coerce women into doing the “right thing” as defined by the OPT and numerous other NGOs that problematize population growth. Those of us who do believe women should have unfettered autonomy in reproductive matters (and I am one of those people) should reject the OPT’s warped idea of “choice,” where women are strongarmed into making one “choice” only: the responsibly green, planet-saving one.

As Planet Gore’s resident Marxist, you will forgive me if I end by quoting Marx. In 1865 he described Thomas Malthus’s “Essay on the Principle of Population” as “a libel against the human race (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592858/why-marx-would-have-been-a-denier.thtml).” Nearly 150 years later, Malthusians are still libelling the human race, depicting it as toxic, poisonous, and something that should be preventing from “spreading.”


— Brendan O’Neill is the editor of spiked (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/) and the author of Can I Recycle My Granny? And 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0340955651).

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFiNGVlMTBlOGI1N2U2OGMzZmI0ZTRkYjFmYWNhNzA=

[scarletghoul]

Fuckin hell. These climate fucks make me sick. ****s.

[Muzk]

****s.


I wouldn't have said that.


Anways, this just shows the hipocrisy of this(liberal?)scum.
We stick to our plan of overthrowing the system, right, folks?

When I was a stupid little kid I thought the solution to the pollution was mass-suicide... whoever thought of this reminds me of myself as a lil baby.

[ls]

Fuckin hell. These climate fucks make me sick. ****s.

This.

[Pogue]

It invites well-off Westerners to offset their carbon emissions (http://www.anonym.to/?http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFiNGVlMTBlOGI1N2U2OGMzZmI0ZTRkYjFmYWNhNzA=#) by paying for poor people in the Third World to stop procreating.



How about fucking no?

[Luisrah]

I didn't read the article, but is it just me, or the title looks like it's saying something about vital space (sp?), that the fascists claim necessary?

[Pogue]

For fucks sake. Way to be fucking morons. Yeh, lets just tell tem to stop having kids. because they don't do it for any reason other than being thick natives, amirite. Nothing to do with the economic security, the lack of contraceptive rights or the religious domination of these socieities. Some people are fucking morons. Neo-liberal westerners need to stop ranting on about shit they know nothing about.

[New Tet]

The title disturbs my sensibilities, ouch.

But beyond my petty, injured sensibilities, what else can we find objectionable to the title of this informative thread?

[Pogue]

The title disturbs my sensibilities, ouch.

But beyond my petty, injured sensibilities, what else can we find objectionable to the title of this informative thread?

Sorry, what sort of point are you trying to make?

[Vanguard1917]

In case there's any confusion about the article's title, the article isn't endorsing the OPT but criticising it.

[RedAnarchist]

Fuckin hell. These climate fucks make me sick. ****s.

Whilst I agree that these Western-centric morons are sick-inducing, you know full well that that word isn't allowed. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

I am new around here, and it makes me wonder:

#1 Isn't it true that space and resources are limited?

#2 Isn't it true that places like India, China, and Africa are overpopulated?

#3 Isn't it true that poor people often have more kids, and that not only makes their own lives miserable but also destroys the environment?

#4 Isn't it the height of stupidity to have kids when the person concerned can't even support himself financially? This is something which most people in the third-world are guilty of, doubtless.

Based on all this, would it not be reasonable to conclude that population must be controlled?:confused: By multiplying people, are we not multiplying poverty?

Again, I am asking all this to learn, so please don't get the wrong idea that I am trying to impose my view; I don't have any. I am just going by observation that's all.

[BobKKKindle$]

#1 Isn't it true that space and resources are limited?In a literal sense, yes, space is limited, but this can hardly be considered a justification for population controls in light of the fact that the vast majority of the earth's surface is only sparsely populated or not populated at all - a quick look at any map showing population density in different parts of the world will show this. As for resources, it's important to remember that there are different kinds of resources, and that the quantity and quality of human resources (in the form of skills and other things that are concerned with the capacities of human beings) determine how we go about using the type of resources that you presumably have in mind when you assert that resources are limited - namely, natural resources. An advance in human resources has always allowed us to make use of resources that were previously of no use to us (for example, oil was hardly used prior to the Industrial Revolution) and also use the resources that we have always used in a more efficient and effective way - and there are those who have argued (for example, Ester Boserup) that a higher population means that greater human resources are available and that the inherent capacity of human societies to develop solutions to potential problems means that whenever societies have faced food crises they have always been able to avert the problem by finding ways to produce more food and use existing food resources more efficiently without having to reduce their populations. The point here is that insofar as the shortage of natural resources is a problem that needs to be dealt with, the solution is not reducing the number of human beings, but developing new ways of exploiting and controlling the natural environment, which is aided by there being more people.


#2 Isn't it true that places like India, China, and Africa are overpopulated?No, not at all. As a continent Africa has one of the lowest population densities in the world whilst also being one of the richest continents in terms of its natural resources, and there are also many European countries (not to mention Asian city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore) with higher population densities than India and China, both of those countries also being rich in natural resources. What makes the populations of countries like India poor is not that there are too many people or that people are having too many children but the fact that we live under an economic system which concentrates wealth in the hands of a small minority within each individual country, due to that minority having ownership of the means of production, whilst also maintaining an ongoing transfer of wealth from the global south to a small number of developed countries. The solution is a socialist revolution, not restricting population growth, which accepts that the existence of people is the problem, and justifies all sorts of reactionary policies, including immigration control - the Green Party of the UK is a leading advocate of restrictions on immigration because they think that allowing people to come to the UK will damage the environment.


This is something which most people in the third-world are guilty of, doubtless.There are many reasons why people have many children, not all of them irrational. For example, one of the reasons there is a negative correlation between fertility and economic development is that underdeveloped countries frequently lack advanced welfare systems, so that adults have many children as a way of guaranteeing that they will be looked after in their old age when their children have become wage-earning adults. In any case, there is nothing wrong with high fertility in and of itself, what is important is that women can choose whether they have children or not - and this is why Marxists support the distribution of contraception and free access to abortion, not because we think population growth is a problem.

This is well worth a read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Welcome, Tchaikovsky. Your 1st is particularly wonderful;):lol:

On a serious, serious note. Population control - just no. I do agree that rising populations are at times problematic. However, I like to reassure myself with a bit of Malthusian Pessimism, which is often proved correct periodically by plagues, hurricanes, tsunamis and so on. In addition, when Capitalism is finally replaced by a more humane way of life, and when religion loses significance as a result, I believe that birth rates will come down.

Often those in poverty produce more children for the economic benefit. Solve the economic problem that is Capitalism, and you are a long way to solving over-population.

Also, forcibly controlling population. Just no.

[BobKKKindle$]

However, I like to reassure myself with a bit of Malthusian Pessimism, which is often proved correct periodically by plagues, hurricanes, tsunamis and so on.

What are you saying? That natural disasters and the like are good because they lower the population? That they prove Malthus right?

[ZeroNowhere]

What are you saying? That natural disasters and the like are good because they lower the population? That they prove Malthus right?
Of course they do! The Black Death was caused by the Malthusian limit, remember?

@OP: I have got a better idea: Exterminate all the brutes!

[turquino]

It seems to me that natalism is far much more reactionary than its environmentalist detractors. It is an unassailable fact that fewer people can demand higher wages for themselves. Workers see no benefit from more of their own kind, it only means sharper competition for smaller wages. A working class that is so numerous that it can’t gain win any victories for wages or rights will always be fractured and unable to organize itself into a political force. Unfortunately crushing poverty alone is not sufficient to galvanize the oppressed.

And what about the future of the planet? It’s not possible for any economic system to have increasing numbers of people consuming larger quantities of finite resources to continue on indefinitely. It would be completely sensible for socialism to have a population policy.

[Vanguard1917]

It seems to me that natalism is far much more reactionary than its environmentalist detractors. It is an unassailable fact that fewer people can demand higher wages for themselves. Workers see no benefit from more of their own kind, it only means sharper competition for smaller wages. A working class that is so numerous that it can’t gain win any victories for wages or rights will always be fractured and unable to organize itself into a political force.

That's certainly an eccentric 'socialist' theory. If increases in the size of the working class were indeed a negative phenomenon from a socialist perspective, then we would have to support a whole range of reactionary positions, including immigration controls. In reality, socialists view the growth of the working class as a positive phenomenon: the more gravediggers of capitalism, the better.



And what about the future of the planet? It’s not possible for any economic system to have increasing numbers of people consuming larger quantities of finite resources to continue on indefinitely.


A hypothesis which has existed for over 200 years in bourgeois thought and has consistently been proven to be utterly false. The world population has never been larger than it is today and our ability to produce enough to meet the material needs of all has never been greater. There is not an ounce of real life evidence to back up the doom-mongering that Malthusians have been practicing for more than two centuries.

[New Tet]

Sorry, what sort of point are you trying to make?

Are you still having trouble understanding what I write? My "point' is in the first clause. Look it up.

[Dimentio]

Population control is not at all adressing the problems with the world.

It is not a shortage of food which is causing starvation. Neither is the Third World responsible for any environmental problems regarding carbon dioxide emissions.

Firstly, enough food to sustain over 12 billion people is produced each year. But very much of that is squandered due to the fact that it isn't profitable to sell and that it would destroy the scarcity element in capitalism.

Secondly, the global footprints are not equally spread out. Ethiopians, Indians and Vietnamese don't at all have the same impact on the environment as typical westerners.

It is very typical for how capitalism works to try to give responsibility for everything which is ultimately caused by capitalism on the people, and especially on the most impoverished and exploited segments of the people.

Population growth could in some cases be a problem, but the best method to curb population growth is to increase the quality of life for all people. Give females education, create a proper elderly care, and so on, and the population growth will be reduced due to the fact that most children survive and the adults doesn't need to get children as an insurance policy against aging.

[Patchd]

Are you still having trouble understanding what I write? My "point' is in the first clause. Look it up.
Let's not speak in riddles now, do you or do you not support what is being proposed in the article (not what the OP believes, but what they posted)?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Even though a restructuring of society would make overpopulation a non-issue, I can't help but sympathize with people suggesting we discourage children. Given that capitalism seems like it's sticking around for a bit, overpopulation is an issue. In terms of harm minimization, there are benefits to be had by discouraging pregnancy in most countries, depending on circumstance. I think, anyway.

This seems pretty ridiculous, though, given that it focuses on a specific racial group. It's talking about poor and disenfranchised Africans. How much do they actually contribute to the population problem? Shouldn't they be advocating condom use for more developed nations, given their reasoning? Or condom use by industry leaders? Then no one can take over their businesses, perhaps?

I don't think population control is the answer to environmental problems. I do think encouraging population control in certain cases is beneficial for other reasons, but people should always be made aware that they can make whatever choices they wish. Case example might be a person with a serious disease that will kill the child, most likely.

Honestly, though, sometimes I think population control is motivated by the wrong reasons. Maybe myself and others just sympathize with it because we hate crying babies on airplanes.

[scarletghoul]

Whilst I agree that these Western-centric morons are sick-inducing, you know full well that that word isn't allowed. Consider this a verbal warning.
Actually I didn't know that word had been banned. I've not been too active on RevLeft lately so apologies. It's just an insult I use a lot.

[Coggeh]

Even though a restructuring of society would make overpopulation a non-issue, I can't help but sympathize with people suggesting we discourage children. Given that capitalism seems like it's sticking around for a bit, overpopulation is an issue.
Capitalist solutions to capitalisms problems never work. Should never to supported or sympatised with. There is no problem of overpopulation, it is a myth designed like so many others to distract from the real problems of society.



Honestly, though, sometimes I think population control is motivated by the wrong reasons. Maybe myself and others just sympathize with it because we hate crying babies on airplanes..... well no argument there. I work in bloody childcare lol ah their just .. little .. bundles of .. joy .. :rolleyes: :)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Capitalist solutions to capitalisms problems never work. Should never to supported or sympatised with. There is no problem of overpopulation, it is a myth designed like so many others to distract from the real problems of society.

.... well no argument there. I work in bloody childcare lol ah their just .. little .. bundles of .. joy .. :rolleyes: :)

Really? Isn't welfare a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem? Maybe that is different. I just don't see how solutions can't be supported while recognize the are not ideal. For instance, striking workers accept a deal, but they would have preferred a higher raise.

Overpopulation is a problem in areas with little or no resources. Although that lack of resources is the result of exploitation, unless that exploitation disappears, every new child born in area X is going to live in poverty - if not die as a result of it. They'll live a terrible existence under the exploitation of capitalism, have a child, die, and the cycle repeats.

Most people in severe poverty aren't raising their children to be revolutionaries. Having extra children is within their rights. The issue isn't really about them. They don't even have time and access to knowledge about such issues. And even if they did, it's illegitimate to expect an oppressed group to not reproduce for the sake of sparing their children an undesirable existence. Well, "maybe it is." What I'm trying to get at is the finger should be pointed at the exploiter. Given how society is now, it is legitimate to say such countries have a population problem. More specifically, if the population will increase, a problem will arise. The problem is that more people exist in conditions that, frankly, people are better off not existing under.

It's also legitimate to say workers are underpaid. Under communism, there wouldn't be such a system of wage. However, we shouldn't say there is no problem of wage disparity because wages should not exist.

You're suggesting overpopulation should be looked at with respect to how society "should be" rather than how it actually is. Given how society actually is, the underdeveloped nations that we exploit do have an overpopulation. They don't have enough food, water, medical supplies, etc, and we certainly aren't going to give them any.

Underdeveloped nations are a resource for capitalists. There are tons of parallels between factory farming and how society deals with underprivileged nations. The issue is about profit maximization. Capitalists want the largest amount of workers possible. If they simply create a lot of workers, competition naturally eliminates some.

Really, I don't know if capitalists sit in an office thinking this stuff up, but it's really sick if you think about it. They essentially let people "grow" and "multiply" so they can use them for profit. Once in awhile, something goes wrong and they go in and "cull" the population. See the Middle East.

What annoys me is they isolate people. Imagine dropping a bunch of angry third world citizens with weapons in the middle of the United States. Then it would be "our" problem. Unfortunately, they've "contained" the situation.

I think the best method is voluntary organizations provide methods for self-sufficiency and educational resources. However, with things like AIDS and other diseases running rampant in areas (thanks again in part to our friendly capitalists), it's difficult to have anything sustainable occurring.

If people seek to lower the population in poorer areas, it can focus aid, develop community solidarity, decrease competition, and even allow better control of possible diseases.

Economists want high populations to maximize profit. High populations to maximize revolutionaries doesn't work when all the revolutionaries are starving to death. Maybe actively encouraging population reduction, and the resulting profit-sink, could allow nations to "build up" themselves into a more self-sufficient and potentially revolutionary groups.

Also, if poorer nations have a decline in birth rate, this will likely have cause a rise in the price of cheap goods. Consequentially, people may be motivated to pay more attention to the interests of such nations.

This is just a random hypothesis. I'd rather see a bunch of revolutionaries cause a significant revolution, take over United States businesses, and funnel distribute the profits back to the people. Then again, the United States would likely attack.

Someone fill me in on whether low or high birth rate in underdeveloped nations will help or harm a revolutionary strategy. Also, what is the revolutionary strategy that might best suit underdeveloped nations, from an anarchist perspective? Now I've got myself all (1) disturbed by realizing how well capitalist exploitation parallels farming and (2) annoyed by my lack of knowledge/ideas about how to consider revolutionary strategies in non-developed areas.

I get in trouble a lot so I'll just clarify:

1. Any person who has a child in an exploited country is not doing anything wrong.
2. Encouraging either population change, either positive or negative, would have to be voluntary and only desirable if it promotes revolutionary ends and the needs of the people living in that country.
3. I'm not 100% sure there is an "overpopulation" problem. I am just explaining my reasoning as to how it seems like it might be considered a problem, even by a leftist.
4. My comparison between farming and people is not intended to suggest people are animals (well, aside from scientifically).
5. Any points I made that may seem derogatory towards the knowledge of people in certain areas aren't intended to reflect on the people. Many areas have no education system. And frankly, even if they do they are often too focused on survival to pursue it. All the "obvious" things we take for granted come from education. So when I assume people don't know about safe sex, preventing pregnancy, etc, this is because there are a lot of evil people (Catholic church) really stopping the efforts to provide such knowledge.

I "think" I covered my basis. I don't normally do a little "don't get mad at me list." However, I'm really burnt out from school, ridiculously tired, and have a slight headache. All such things make the probability of me accidentally saying something stupid increase significantly. And for those who read my posts, that probability was already very high! ;) zzz

[ComradeMan]

This article is very short-sighted. To my understanding the problem is this:-

1. Many African countries do suffer from over-population which leads to poverty with respect to their levels of development and infrastructures. As one member points out, uncontrolled population booms can lead to problems of space and poverty.

However,

1. In many African countries children are your insurance for your old-age, with little or no protection for people, due to poverty, due to things like coffee futures and banana wars etc etc and so one, it is going to be hard to convince people in Africa not to have large families.

Whereas someone in the West can have no children, retire and live relatively comfortably with pensions, subsidised health schemes and free bus passes etc that is not the reality for many people in the poorest parts of Africa. Even the pensioners who grumble in Europe are rich beyond the imagination of many "pensioners" in Africa who basically have to work until they are too old or sick and hope that their sons can support them.

The way I see it is this, they are not poor because they have big families rather they have big families because they are poor. If you see what I mean?

Perhaps the people who wrote this article might like to mention that? Perhaps if African nations had an even distribution of wealth, a half-decent state health and pension scheme, and so and so one it would not be a problem?

I also find it amusing that Africans are the problem? Why not Indians or Chinese? Why is it the Africans? The population of the entire African continent is 1,000,010,000
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-esa.un.org_0-0) "World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision" (http://esa.un.org/unpp/) United Nations (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_Nations) (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, population division whereas the population of China is estimated at 1,345,751,000 and India at 1,198,003,000. Strikes me as if they are singling out the poorest people again and accusing them of being responsible for not only their own poverty but also the ruin of the planet! How dare they? :)

As for the rest of the article, well quite frankly it smacks of early 20th century eugenics and racial science and sounds rather sinister.

[9]

This article is very short-sighted. To my understanding the problem is this:-

1. Many African countries do suffer from over-population which leads to poverty with respect to their levels of development and infrastructures. As one member points out, uncontrolled population booms can lead to problems of space and poverty.

Well, actually there isn't a shortage of space or anything like that in Africa. As someone said earlier in this thread, you can see quite clearly from a population density map that there is not some sort of overpopulation epidemic where there is simply not enough space to accommodate the amount of people:

http://benbyerly.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/africa-population-density-2000-heat-map1.png?w=468&h=437

Also, it is not an issue of "overpopulation" which is leading to poverty; BobKindles and others did an excellent job of dispelling some of these myths above.



However,

1. In many African countries children are your insurance for your old-age, with little or no protection for people, due to poverty, due to things like coffee futures and banana wars etc etc and so one, it is going to be hard to convince people in Africa not to have large families.

Whereas someone in the West can have no children, retire and live relatively comfortably with pensions, subsidised health schemes and free bus passes etc that is not the reality for many people in the poorest parts of Africa. Even the pensioners who grumble in Europe are rich beyond the imagination of many "pensioners" in Africa who basically have to work until they are too old or sick and hope that their sons can support them.

The way I see it is this, they are not poor because they have big families rather they have big families because they are poor. If you see what I mean?

Perhaps the people who wrote this article might like to mention that? Perhaps if African nations had an even distribution of wealth, a half-decent state health and pension scheme, and so and so one it would not be a problem?

I also find it amusing that Africans are the problem? Why not Indians or Chinese? Why is it the Africans? The population of the entire African continent is 1,000,010,000
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-esa.un.org_0-0) "World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision" (http://esa.un.org/unpp/) United Nations (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_Nations) (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, population division whereas the population of China is estimated at 1,345,751,000 and India at 1,198,003,000. Strikes me as if they are singling out the poorest people again and accusing them of being responsible for not only their own poverty but also the ruin of the planet! How dare they? :)

As for the rest of the article, well quite frankly it smacks of early 20th century eugenics and racial science and sounds rather sinister.

I think you have misread the article because it wasn't advocating any of these things; it was criticizing the people who were advocating such things.

[ComradeMan]

I see your point, but take into account desert areas and uninhabitable land. The population denisity "hot spots" are where there are overcrowding and the the problems that go with it.

http://benbyerly.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/africa-population-density-2000-heat-map1.png?w=468&h=437


I don't think it's overpopulation either... gosh, we agree on something for a change. :)

I do maintain that the poorest in Africa do have families they cannot sustain and this causes a vicious circle of poverty, however I maintain that this is a result of their poverty not a root cause of it.

Perhaps I worded my response badly as I did skip through the original post quickly, I shall reword it then, I criticise the people who suggest that the Africans are causing their own poverty!


I would hasten to add, that this idea is a very common idea however. A lot of otherwise well-meaning and decent people I have spoken too have echoed the sentiment that people in the "Third World" in general are somehow the authors of their own downfall because they have big families they cannot support.

[Dimentio]

When I read the stats about African countries, I am struck with surprise about how small some of their populations are. Clearly, this isn't a case of "too many mouths" but rather resources which are unfairly distributed.

[BobKKKindle$]

The population denisity "hot spots" are where there are overcrowding and the the problems that go with it.

Overcrowding is not the same as overpopulation. I don't deny that there is significant overcrowding in many African cities but this is because a large section of the population lives in slums and other kinds of dwellings that we associate with people living in close proximity to one another, which is in turn a result of the fact that we live under an economic system that fails to provide good housing for all - if we lived under a different system then there wouldn't be such a thing as overcrowding or slums because everyone would have a decent place to live regardless of how big the population is. In the mean time calling for the number of people to be reduced is not going to stop people living in slums and suffering a lack of decent sanitation.


I do maintain that the poorest in Africa do have families they cannot sustain and this causes a vicious circle of poverty, however I maintain that this is a result of their poverty not a root cause of it.

You may not think that overpopulation is the original cause of poverty but if you think that people having lots of children creates a vicious cycle then you evidently still believe that the existence of people is a problem and that poverty can be dealt with, even if only to some extent, by lowering fertility rates. In other words, you adopt a crass Malthusian position.

[Vanguard1917]

Perhaps the people who wrote this article might like to mention that? Perhaps if African nations had an even distribution of wealth, a half-decent state health and pension scheme, and so and so one it would not be a problem?


But this still assumes that the size of the population is a problem in Africa. You have also suggested that a cause of poverty in African countries is there being too many Africans ('Many African countries do suffer from over-population which leads to poverty'). But you have not provided any evidence to back this up. In reality, poverty in Africa has nothing to do with there being too many mouths to feed. It is caused by economic underdevelopment and poverty (something which, btw, you celebrated in a previous thread when you argued that the poorest countries can also be the happiest).

[ComradeMan]

Vicious circles.

All I'm saying is that in the poorest and most overcrowded parts of Africa people have large families that can't usually support with their current situation. Remember the issue was about stopping African babies.

"In Africa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Africa), if current trends of soil degradation and population growth continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_Nations_University)'s Ghana (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ghana)-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa.

Hunger (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Hunger) and malnutrition (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Malnutrition) kill nearly 6 million children a year, and more people are malnourished in sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa) this decade than in the 1990s, according to a report released by the Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Food_and_Agriculture_Organization). In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of malnourished people grew to 203.5 million people in 2000-02 from 170.4 million 10 years earlier says The State of Food Insecurity in the World report. In 2001, 46.4% of people in sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa) were living in extreme poverty (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Poverty)"

[Vanguard1917]

All I'm saying is that in the poorest and most overcrowded parts of Africa people have large families that can't usually support with their current situation.


Yes, they can't support their families because they are poor. The problem is poverty, not their children. What you are effectively doing is blaming Africans themselves for their poverty.

But, according to you, poverty is not such a big problem anyway, since you believe the poorest countries can also be the happiest.



"In Africa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Africa), if current trends of soil degradation and population growth continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_Nations_University)'s Ghana (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ghana)-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa.


A problem of inefficient and backward agricultural production, not population.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, they can't support their families because they are poor. The problem is poverty, not their children. What you are effectively doing is blaming Africans themselves for their poverty.

No, I'm saying that their large families are a result of poverty and the lack of safety nets in their societies and therefore it creates a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, i.e. a vicious circle. My original point being how can you blame a poor family in Africa for having many children when they are only having many children because they are poor? The root cause of the poverty needs to addressed.

But, according to you, poverty is not such a big problem anyway, since you believe the poorest countries can also be the happiest.

Yawn..... you know the point I was making in another thread on a difficult subject, I said that material wealth does not guarantee happiness, I did not suggest that poverty does and used the statistic as an example.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, they can't support their families because they are poor. The problem is poverty, not their children. What you are effectively doing is blaming Africans themselves for their poverty.

No, I'm saying that their large families are a result of poverty and the lack of safety nets in their societies and therefore it creates a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, i.e. a vicious circle. My original point being how can you blame a poor family in Africa for having many children when they are only having many children because they are poor? The root cause of the poverty needs to addressed.

But that still implies that the size of the population is a problem. It isn't. It is not what is contributing to the poverty -- as the 'vicious circle' scenario suggests. Some of the most densely populated parts of the world are also some of the richest -- because they are economically developed, which is the key determining factor in making a society better off.

Also, families in poor agricultural societies have a preference for larger families because larger families are seen to bring in more income. If that is the case, how will reducing family size reduce their poverty?