Horn of Africa: Famine & Family Planning

wrathex

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
4,378
Reaction score
41
Location
Stellenbosch
Horn of Africa shows family planning need: UN agency

Tue Aug 2, 2011 1:39pm GMT

Source: http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE7710D620110802?sp=true

By Mark John

DAKAR (Reuters) - The Horn of Africa food crisis shows the need to provide the world's poor with better access to family planning as part of efforts to prevent future tragedies, the head of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) said.

The United Nations has declared a famine in two regions of southern Somalia, where 3.7 million are going hungry, with over 12 million people now in need of urgent aid throughout areas including northern Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

Despite regular food shortages and high infant mortality, the region's population has more than doubled since it was hit by major droughts in 1974, spurred by factors such as limited contraception use and a tradition of large families.

While stressing the root cause of the crisis was the recent rain failures, UNFPA Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin said it highlighted the plight of those living in parts of the world where the land struggles to support human life.

"We need to improve food production ... and to work with member states to ensure women and particularly young girls have access to education, including sexual education, and access to health services and reproductive health services including family planning," Osotimehin told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Emphasising the voluntary nature of the family planning policies supported by his agency, he said the aim was to help women "to have children when they want to have them and choose a number which they can afford within their own context".

While population growth in the Horn of Africa is cited by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and specialists such as U.S. development economist Jeffrey Sachs as a factor in the current crisis, family planning remains a sensitive area.

SLICE OF THE CAKE

The lack of welfare systems across much of Africa and high infant mortality foster cultures in which high birth rates and large families are seen by many parents as a way of ensuring that some children survive to support them in old age.

Yet that can also make it harder to ensure individual children within a family get enough food and access to the schooling which could break the vicious circle of poverty.

Osotimehin said the UNFPA estimated 215 million women in poor countries lacked proper access to family planning, a need which if met would cut each year the number of unintended pregnancies by over two-thirds to 22 million and halve the number of infant deaths to 1.5 million.

Pointing to the relatively high level of access to family planning in wealthier Muslim countries such as Iran or Tunisia, Osotimehin said religion did not appear to be the main factor determining its prevalence.

"It tends to relate more to cultural (factors) than religion. It is about the status of women, which is culturally determined," said Osotimehin, a former Nigerian health minister who said he saw such attitudes evolving in his own country and neighbours such as Niger, a regular victim of drought.

The UNFPA had its U.S. funding restored by President Barack Obama after it was cut by a series of Republican administrations over accusations that it supported coercive birth control -- allegations it has denied.

Osotimehin said the extra funds needed to extend family planning across the poor world totalled $3.6 billion, against the agency's estimate that doing so would cut the costs of maternal and infant health by $5.1 billion.

He said the debt problems facing governments in the United States and Europe and the competition from other concerns such as the fight against HIV/AIDS or climate change had in recent years dampened funding levels.

"The overseas development aid cake is fixed," he noted. "You have to make your case in the most compelling manner to make sure you get (a) slice of the cake."


-------------------------------------- ends article

Exactly, poverty will never be eradicated as long as the poorest and most uneducated do not curb their growth, this is logical.

Those of us, who have small families so that we can properly educate and provide for them are doing it right and if the current global trend (rich and educated having smaller and smaller families) continues, the poor/uneducated masses will literally nookie our whole civilisation back into the stone age and they will do so by making the wrong shortsighted choices when the democratic voting system is used.

Beware the future, the tables are turning, the educated, will, by logical deduction, not have the voting power to vote on serious issues with regards to good choices for long term prosperity anymore.

Uneducated people generally vote for/or make choices for instant gratification, they simply do no have the knowledge or understanding of long term issues.

The actual cost of free housing, free water, free electricity and free welfare is never understood, until it is too late and a country has fallen into economic disrepair, civil war and become a crime infested and lawless famine zone.

Educate educate educate !
 
...They aren't poor because they have too many kids, they have many kids because they are poor.

If you are poor and working a basic subsistance lifestyle, you HAVE to have more kids, thats how YOUR ancestors survived. The reason is simple, who puts food on the table if you die, or get sick or injured? Remember these people don't have healthcare, insurance etc. etc.

So in order to compensate for this, they have kids to work the fields with them. Now I know many of you are thinking about "child" labour, and yeah, it isn't ideal, but that is how YOUR ancestors got your family out of poverty and improved their situation.

When the situation changes and wealth increases, then you'll have more options. The availability of healthcare (Not welfare) will allow members to have less kids. The cost of higher education will make people realise that it is not affordable to give all their children this benefit if they have too many kids, so they economise, have less kids.

I don't know how you guys can justify limiting population growth in desperately poor countries where many people live subsistance lifestyles, when having lots of kids is exactly how your ancestors were able to increase their wealth and get out of their position of poverty.
 
Sadly alot of the momentum with family planning took a backseat with the HIV pandemic. The focus of international and local gvt aid shifted so radically from prevention to treatment that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. I'm not talking plain old condoms, i'm talking getting back to the family unit and encouraging / advocating for smaller, more affordable families. Also, finding ways to put family planning back into the hands of mothers. Condoms are great, they are just not often available everywhere. New, creative ways to curb population explosion are needed, otherwise the poor stay right where they are - poor and uneducated... vicious circle.
 
Last edited:
I'm no longer convinced these poor countries are even overpopulated. There are many other factors contributing.

The other idiocy that arises from feudal mindsets in the 21st century is the disproportionate ratio between males and females. China and India are well stuffed.
It's a combination of that and only being allowed one child.

Work the fields with your neighbours instead of your kids.
You don't only have numerous children, so they can work. Many of them are going to die. Actually expecting all your children to make it to adulthood is a fairly recent thing.

Sadly alot of the momentum with family planning took a backseat with the HIV pandemic. The focus of international and local gvt aid shifted so radically from prevention to treatment that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. I'm not talking plain old condoms, i'm talking getting back to the family unit and encouraging / advocating for smaller, more affordable families. Also, finding ways to put family planning back into the hands of mothers. Condoms are great, they are just not often available everywhere. New, creative ways to curb population explosion are needed, otherwise the poor stay right where they are - poor and uneducated... vicious circle.
Let's not forget those raving lunatics, the Catholics, and their anti-contraception campaigns. Their favourite tactic is to target the poor and ignorant.
 
...They aren't poor because they have too many kids, they have many kids because they are poor.


I don't know how you guys can justify limiting population growth in desperately poor countries where many people live subsistance lifestyles, when having lots of kids is exactly how your ancestors were able to increase their wealth and get out of their position of poverty.
When do they know how to stop this? They seem not to have stopped the behavior when it started going better.
( serious Question)
Does this all boil down to education? Cause In our country they have not stopped this either.
 
Famine in Ireland - Population halves
Famine in Africa - Population doubles

People moved away from Ireland. The population of Irish émigrés is far larger than that within the Emerald Isle.

Statist intervention in Africa usually means people get rounded up and concentrated into areas they cannot subsist from. Then the nice foreign interventionists come and dump free food upon them, enough to keep the population up, but starved, and enough to destroy any incentive to farm for surplus and profit. Artificially contrived borders mean people who were once traditionally nomadic all of a sudden get bottled up in an area that can't sustain such a concentration of people. Finally you get the brutal influence of socialist collectivization over the past decades where governments claim the right to natural resources, property and expropriate by force.
 
Last edited:
People moved away from Ireland. The population of Irish émigrés is far larger than that within the Emerald Isle.

Statist intervention in Africa usually means people get rounded up and concentrated into areas they cannot subsist from. Then the nice foreign interventionists come and dump free food upon them, enough to keep the population up, but starved, and enough to destroy any incentive to farm for surplus and profit. Artificially contrived borders mean people who were once traditionally nomadic all of a sudden get bottled up in an area that can't sustain such a concentration of people. Finally you get the brutal influence of socialist collectivization over the past decades where governments claim the right to natural resources, property and expropriate by force.

Ah, point taken. Nice summary, thank you.
 
...They aren't poor because they have too many kids, they have many kids because they are poor.

If you are poor and working a basic subsistance lifestyle, you HAVE to have more kids, thats how YOUR ancestors survived. The reason is simple, who puts food on the table if you die, or get sick or injured? Remember these people don't have healthcare, insurance etc. etc.

So in order to compensate for this, they have kids to work the fields with them. Now I know many of you are thinking about "child" labour, and yeah, it isn't ideal, but that is how YOUR ancestors got your family out of poverty and improved their situation.

When the situation changes and wealth increases, then you'll have more options. The availability of healthcare (Not welfare) will allow members to have less kids. The cost of higher education will make people realise that it is not affordable to give all their children this benefit if they have too many kids, so they economise, have less kids.

I don't know how you guys can justify limiting population growth in desperately poor countries where many people live subsistance lifestyles, when having lots of kids is exactly how your ancestors were able to increase their wealth and get out of their position of poverty.

Whaaaaaat?? BS !! Less mouths to fill...smaller crop needed...less people required to work the fields. LOGICAL. Now the logic is: "We breed...the white man will feed."
 
Whaaaaaat?? BS !! Less mouths to fill...smaller crop needed...less people required to work the fields. LOGICAL. Now the logic is: "We breed...the white man will feed."

History agrees with me, the average size of families back in the day was much much larger. In more advanced countries the average family sizes have declined.

From another clever guy:

Most populations have gone through what researchers call a demographic transition with four phases. Without much health care, you generally have high death rates. With high infant mortality rates in particular, populations typically have high birth rates.

Parents usually want to have more children to make sure that some survive to adulthood and live to take care of them in their old age (in some societies, that still happens). Also, in agricultural societies without child labor laws, a child can be earning their own keep in the fields by ten or twelve (and trust me, many 12-year-olds that I work with would rather be in the fields than in the classroom). The more hands you have at harvest, the more food you can generate. In a society dependent on agriculture, it makes sense to have as big a family as you can.

So, medical care, sanitation, vaccinations are introduced. Death rates and infant mortality rates in particular fall. Suddenly, many more infants survive to see their first birthday, their fifth birthday, their sixteenth. And it generally takes a little while for cultural values to change, and for family size to shrink. The developing population explodes.

What really helps bring birthrates down is education and economic opportunities for women. Economic development--the change from a farming based economy to one in which people work in factories and offices also results in smaller families.

Urbanization is key. Folks who would have a big family in the countryside look at rents for large houses and apartments in the city, then they look around the city itself and ask themselves, "Do I really want to bring up children here?"

In demographic transition theory, what would then happen is that birthrates would come down to just above replacement level: maybe 3 kids per family, so that the population and economy is growing ever so slightly. What has actually happened in many cases is that birthrates have fallen below replacement level.
 
Whaaaaaat?? BS !! Less mouths to fill...smaller crop needed...less people required to work the fields. LOGICAL. Now the logic is: "We breed...the white man will feed."

No, large families were quite common in the West up to only a few generations ago. Both my parents have more than five siblings and their parents have more than five each too and they were the descendants of those who moved around the world to escape famine and war with large families. In those days you were pretty much an adult if you made it to adolescence and began working to help your family. Same thing in Africa, the difference is the problems I've already mentioned before. In the West trade and specialization meant people didn't have to rely on subsistence agriculture, their economies developed, but this only happens in an environment where you have respect for property rights etc.
 
When a race is threatened with extinction it produces more.
Imagine what would happen if the population is reduced with contraception,and then reduced further by starvation.
However if the mortality rate exceeds the bith rate,total annihilation is inevitable,as we have seen with some animal species.
 
An important but never-mentioned exacerbation of the current financial crises in the West is the lack of people. There are probably at least 200 million less people in the developed world than there would otherwise be were it not for contraception and abortion ... less people to produce, pay tax, support their parents in old age, etc.

In fact, there is a growing awareness that the greatest medium-term threat to the developed world -- even more than so-called climate change or the dire debt/GDP ratios -- is the demographic implosion.

The overpopulation myth is really just that - a myth. And so yesterday. Google can help you get up to date, as will any search engine.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X