From: imbibe@mindspring.com   
      
   More population neglect from the United Nations   
   by Jan van Weeren, May 9, 2023   
      
   Last month, the U.N. Population Fund launched its State of the World   
   Population 2023 report. It has the optimistic title 8 Billion Lives, Infinite   
   Possibilities. As in 2018, with The Power of Choice and in 2021, with My Body   
   is My Own, the new report    
   takes the gospel as it was proclaimed in Cairo almost thirty years ago as its   
   leading principle. This 1994 International Conference on Population and   
   Development (ICPD) was a shift away from population control ideologies towards   
   sexual and reproductive    
   health and rights. Despite the consensus statement at Cairo acknowledging the   
   harms done by population growth, the UN has interpreted its mandate as   
   insisting that demographic targets should no longer be goals in themselves.   
   The aim of any population    
   policy should be to ensure the reproductive rights of people, rather than to   
   achieve demographic targets.   
      
   How successful was this leading principle after all those years? Data from 68   
   countries show that an estimated 44 per cent of partnered women are still   
   unable to make decisions over health care, sex or contraception [p. 4].   
   Prevalence of patriarchal    
   norms seems to play a critical role [p. 54]. Most women report joint   
   decision-making, but when their preferences differ from those of their   
   husbands, men will normally have the final say [p. 106]. Although these data   
   are not very encouraging, they could    
   have been worse without any efforts to improve the position of women. The   
   report calls for further action, not just from policymakers and    
   arliamentarians, but also from young people, older persons, activists, the   
   private sector and civil society groups.    
   â€œTogether, we must create a world where everyone can exercise their rights,   
   choices and responsibilities. This is essential for building a more   
   sustainable, equal and just world for all 8 billion of us. A future of   
   infinite possibilities. The time for    
   action is now.â€� [p. 9]   
      
   So far, so good. But then it is reported that surveys carried out in a variety   
   of countries (Brazil, Egypt, France, Hungary, India, Japan, Nigeria, USA) show   
   that between 50 per cent and 80 per cent of the respondents believe that the   
   world population is    
   too high, against vanishing numbers much below 10 per cent who believe that   
   the world population is too low [p. 44]. Demographic targets enter the report   
   through the back door, in the form of opinions held by people in a broad   
   variety of countries. They    
   stand for the demographic targets which were banned since the Cairo ICPD in   
   1994.   
      
   In response to this data the report makes a remarkable move. People believing   
   that there are too many of us are framed as victims of misleading alarmist [p.   
   7] or simplistic narratives [p. 47]. These people are allegedly made   
   vulnerable to the claims of â   
   €œtoo manyâ€� or are influenced by alarmist rhetoric about “ov   
   rpopulationâ€� [p. 47]. There is no such thing as over- nor underpopulation,   
   according to the report.   
      
   Inequality, violations of human rights and lack of sustainable development are   
   seen as the key drivers of the ill health, environmental degradation, poverty,   
   hunger and tragedy blamed on “overpopulationâ€� [p. 37]. The causal chain   
   from overpopulation (   
   too many consuming too much) to environmental degradation, poverty and hunger   
   and tragedy is totally overlooked.   
      
   The only thing that counts is a lack of reproductive rights for women. A   
   reaction of Eliza Anyangwe, editor of CNN As Equals, responding to remarks of   
   the UK’s Prince William, is quoted approvingly in the report: “identifying   
   population growth as the    
   problem, logically presents population control as the solution. This   
   automatically transforms wombs into legitimate sites for climate policyâ€� [p.   
   38].   
      
   This rhetoric puts the problem of the relationship between population growth   
   and increasing CO2-emissions simply off limits. There is nothing   
   â€˜automatic’ linking demographic concerns to any form of coercive measures.   
   Even if there were, this is not a    
   logical reason to deny that population growth is a problem. It would be a   
   reason to change the culture and practices of family planning programs to   
   eliminate involuntary measures and improve the focus on health and rights –   
   but this was largely    
   achieved in the decade before Cairo.   
      
   According to the World Population Policies 2021 report, 69 countries have   
   population policies to lower fertility, half of them in sub-Saharan Africa.   
   The report acknowledges the development gains that can be achieved after   
   fertility decline. However,    
   efforts to further this decline should not be based on fertility targets,   
   according to UNFPA. The only intention should be to secure the sexual and   
   reproductive rights of individuals [p.50]. We will have to ask what   
   individuals want for themselves. Even â   
   €œsoftâ€� targeting through persuasion and incentives is not allowed. We   
   should not try to convince people of the benefits of smaller families nor tell   
   them that a shrinking population contributes to a better life for generations   
   to come.   
      
   The examples above highlight the predicament of population policies according   
   to the gospel of Cairo. In the last thirty years this policy has proven to be   
   ineffective. Merely stressing the sexual and reproductive health and rights of   
   women in a context    
   where men rule makes no sense. Governments supported family planning and   
   strengthened reproductive health services when they believed this was   
   necessary for economic development; empowering women was a co-benefit.   
   Removing the economic motive has meant    
   less progress for women’s health and rights, not more. The UN’s rhetoric   
   insists that demographic targets inevitably lead to coercive measures that   
   abuse human rights and individual freedoms, but many successful voluntary   
   programs show this to be    
   untrue (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). Indeed, it is a very   
   damaging lie that has impeded women’s emancipation and deepened poverty and   
   environmental crises.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)