![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NEW
INTERNATIONALIST 176 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
THIS
MONTH'S THEME |
||||||||||||||||||||||
POPULATION |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Families to order
Mythconceptions The wages of sin Malthus and morality Africas precious few They call it la
operación At cross purposes on
abortion Childless
by choice Better safe than
sorry Date
with a diaphragm SIMPLY... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FROM
THIS MONTH'S EDITOR |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
‘Having too many children is like smoking,’ said one to me. ‘Why should I get lung cancer because of your self-indulgent habit?’ And that was one of the milder arguments. One man I met on holiday even suggested that sending aid to Africa was ‘compounding the problem’ because it allowed so many potential breeders to survive. The problem, I believe, is that the word ‘population’ is an abstract, statistical term. It’s a word we use to talk about masses of undifferentiated humanity — like buying a pound of whitebait for your supper, rather than, say, 341 little silver fishes that once frisked and swam in the dappled shallows of the ocean. I’m being deliberately fanciful, but I think that when we talk about ‘population’ exactly the same thing happens: individual people — laughing, working, scratching their heads trying to solve this problem or that — simply disappear. And once the people have disappeared, it then becomes possible to manipulate the ‘population’ in your mind as if it were any other variable in a mathematical equation. Need more workers for the factories and plantations? Simple: ban contraception. Need fewer people in the shanties and the ghettos? Simple: launch a sterilisation campaign. Need fewer poor people, black people, disabled people? Simple: target the sterilisation campaign. Given that the majority of people are as rational about their fertility as I am — and God knows we are the ones who have to live with our decisions — it seems that any government which tries to overrule those decisions for the sake of some nebulous ‘common good’, or ‘future benefit’ is not to be trusted. If they are disinterested in my individual welfare today, what assurance do I have that they will miraculously become interested in my welfare tomorrow, after I have had the number of babies they tell me are ‘necessary’? Of course there is a danger that anyone who criticises population policies is assumed to be against family planning per se. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is precisely because I am so in favour of family planning — of women (and men) planning their own families — that I am so supicious of any population policy that attempts to do anything but help them have the number of children they think is best for them. This
is the reason there are so many personal stories in the magazine this
month and why the entire keynote article is devoted to an attempt to understand
how poor people make decisions about their childbearing. I wanted to bring
the people into the spotlight for a change and shove ‘population’
into the background, where it belongs. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Debbie Taylor for the New Internationalist Co-operative |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Letters
COVER PHOTO: Sarah Errington / Alan Hutchison |
||||||||||||||||||||||



NOW
that I’ve finished researching this issue of NI, I have come to
hate the very word ‘population’. Not because I’ve tapped
it into the word processor so many times — though that would be
reason enough — but because once it is uttered even the most sensible,
humane people tend to
