Poverty Areas Need To Stop Having So Many Babies

[Clint Cora]

Watching the news about the current draught or refugee issue in the Kenya/Somalia area and the many children and babies starving to death. What really annoys me with such cases is why do they keep having so many babies when it's quite clear that these people cannot afford to have them?

We can donate all we can to help these people but the root of the problem is still too many babies from a poverty stricken community that cant' afford them. My guess is the ignorant and somewhat irresponible men there who don't care about the consequences of impregnating the women at leisure. I doubt there was much family planning involved.

Then the TV showed this one woman who walked for a week with her 8 kids to reach the refugee camp. What's she doing with 8 kids? Just makes you want to shake your head. But if it's really the men who are at fault here, then there clearly needs to be a massive educational effort implemented.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Watching the news about the current draught or refugee issue in the Kenya/Somalia area and the many children and babies starving to death. What really annoys me with such cases is why do they keep having so many babies when it's quite clear that these people cannot afford to have them?

We can donate all we can to help these people but the root of the problem is still too many babies from a poverty stricken community that cant' afford them. My guess is the ignorant and somewhat irresponible men there who don't care about the consequences of impregnating the women at leisure. I doubt there was much family planning involved.

Then the TV showed this one woman who walked for a week with her 8 kids to reach the refugee camp. What's she doing with 8 kids? Just makes you want to shake your head. But if it's really the men who are at fault here, then there clearly needs to be a massive educational effort implemented.

Where do I even start with this ignorant post?

People want to have kids for personal reasons. Many want to have kids to take care of them when they're old, or support the family in general. Or they are just uneducated because, duh, they live in areas where it's difficult to get a good education. Or it's just part of their culture, like it used to be with American culture. Americans started having less babies BECAUSE OF economic improvements/changes, not the other way around.

Furthermore, the "First World" is always trying to blame the "Third World" for having too many babies, as if that's the primary cause of poverty. Meanwhile, "First World" / White People are encouraged to have more babies. And First World babies use a lot more resources and cost a lot more money! If we see dense population in Japan, it's okay. If we see dense population in India, "stop having so many babies!"

And the idea that we can donate the world out of poverty has been disproven for decades.

[ZephyrusX]

There are many reasons and it wouldn't be appropriate to only blame the parents of third world, poverty stricken areas. Not having access to family planning, sex/reproduction education, contraceptives and abortion services will increase the birth rate. Some Western governments (the US and Canada) have in the past refused to offer charity to family planning centers that support abortion services. I'm not sure if they still do this.

Culture still plays a major role in these dynamics though. Educating women and empowering them to have more choice in their own reproductive choices has decreased the birth rate in some areas. The problem with that though is that you do have to educate men as well, as culturally, they made the major decisions in regards to reproduction. The issue is about empowering women culturally via higher education and economic opportunity.

I don't think the heart of the problem is over population per se, however. It is a little more complicated than that. But I don't have time to ramble on. I have to go clean. Yippee.

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Watching the news about the current draught or refugee issue in the Kenya/Somalia area and the many children and babies starving to death. What really annoys me with such cases is why do they keep having so many babies when it's quite clear that these people cannot afford to have them?

We can donate all we can to help these people but the root of the problem is still too many babies from a poverty stricken community that cant' afford them. My guess is the ignorant and somewhat irresponible men there who don't care about the consequences of impregnating the women at leisure. I doubt there was much family planning involved.

Then the TV showed this one woman who walked for a week with her 8 kids to reach the refugee camp. What's she doing with 8 kids? Just makes you want to shake your head. But if it's really the men who are at fault here, then there clearly needs to be a massive educational effort implemented.

[free thinker]

If you don’t have kids, you don’t have a time problem.
I have friends without kids and I want to wring their neck every time they say, “I’m so busy. I don’t have enough time.” You don’t have enough time?! Are you kidding me? My theory, which seems to be much more popular with my friends that have children, is that people without kids are inefficient and don’t fully value their free time.
the problem in third world actually is not 'kids' you should know that good parents all the time they want more kids in order to support them when they come old.. in the third world, marriage life should be controlled and senstise.

[Andrew Brunelle]

There are a lot of reasons poorer people have so many children. First of all, there is less chance all of them will survive. Secondly, most of these people are uneducated about population and other factors. There are not always available protection and contraceptive options. Lastly, they want people to take care of them when they get old and cannot care for themselves. I'm sure there are many other reasons. These are just the ones that immediately come to mind.

[Focus Driblet]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Watching the news about the current draught or refugee issue in the Kenya/Somalia area and the many children and babies starving to death. What really annoys me with such cases is why do they keep having so many babies when it's quite clear that these people cannot afford to have them?

We can donate all we can to help these people but the root of the problem is still too many babies from a poverty stricken community that cant' afford them. My guess is the ignorant and somewhat irresponible men there who don't care about the consequences of impregnating the women at leisure. I doubt there was much family planning involved.

Then the TV showed this one woman who walked for a week with her 8 kids to reach the refugee camp. What's she doing with 8 kids? Just makes you want to shake your head. But if it's really the men who are at fault here, then there clearly needs to be a massive educational effort implemented.

Unless it's rape, sex is a two-way street.

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by Focus Driblet

Unless it's rape, sex is a two-way street.

Unfortunately, rape and AIDS is still rampant over there where there is a macho attitude among the men.

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Where do I even start with this ignorant post?

Furthermore, the "First World" is always trying to blame the "Third World" for having too many babies, as if that's the primary cause of poverty. Meanwhile, "First World" / White People are encouraged to have more babies. And First World babies use a lot more resources and cost a lot more money! If we see dense population in Japan, it's okay. If we see dense population in India, "stop having so many babies!"

And the idea that we can donate the world out of poverty has been disproven for decades.

India is a growing economic power, Somalia is not. China has been overpopulated beyond their available resources which is why they brought in a law to make it illegal to have more than one child per family. So yes, it does make sense for some form of control if the population could not be supported. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been further lost in China if they didn't introduce the one child per family law.

And yes, we can't donate the world out of poverty which is why we have to get to the root of the problem which always comes back to the men, especially in macho dominated societies. They continue to rape and impregnate their women despite the high incidence of AIDs and lack of resources to properly bring up families. So yes, their governments should intervene with education and if needed, legal measures to stop having so many babies unless they can prove that they won't end up in mass graves like they are right now at the refugee camps.

Have you even seen the reports on CNN or BBC in the last 2 weeks? Do you know that they are putting all kids who actually make it to the camps through a triage system? I'm sure that the mothers would not have wanted the burden of having so many kids in that type of situation.

This has nothing to do with First World position. Just put on your economist hat for a minute and analyze the economy (or lack of), education level, resources, medical services, and terrain of that part of Africa. Then tell us if it's wrong to think they should be limiting the number of births until conditions improve.

As for the first line about my post being ignorant, for somebody who desires to improve in interpersonal communications and conversation skills, I would respectfully suggest the study of tact.

In this day and age where people skills are now considered even more important than technical skills for advancement into senior levels, a lack of tact especially towards someone you don't really know, will severely limit your success.

[Solipsist]

Reminds me of a line to an old Pretenders' tune ...

"When you own a big chunk of the bloody Third World,
The babies just come with the scenery"

[aelle]

Historically and across cultures, natality rates drop when people, especially women, have access to education and health services, and when the general population becomes wealthier and more industrialized. Not the other way around.
The large families are a symptom of the problem, not its roots.

You should check out Hans Rosling's videos on TED, he's got some intersting data and ideas on the topic.

[ZephyrusX]

This is my understanding as well. That is why an organization like the UN and their Millennium Development Goals do not explicitly make reference to lower birth rates (if I recall correctly). The goals focus more on maternal and child health, gender equality, poverty reduction and universal education. The understanding is that the birth rate will decrease if these measures improve.

Originally Posted by aelle

Historically and across cultures, natality rates drop when people, especially women, have access to education and health services, and when the general population becomes wealthier and more industrialized. Not the other way around.
The large families are a symptom of the problem, not its roots.

You should check out Hans Rosling's videos on TED, he's got some intersting data and ideas on the topic.

[JSB]

If you live off of subsistence farming, children are farm workers. Children also take care of their elderly parents when they can no longer work. In areas with high infant and childhood mortality, people tend to have many children since an unknown number of them are likely to die in childhood.

This don't even address access to reliable birth control, or religious prohibitions against it.

[RichGrad]

The thing is... people in these countries can't even afford basic contraceptives and may not even be educated enough to use them.

You can't really fault them for it...

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by RichGrad

The thing is... people in these countries can't even afford basic contraceptives and may not even be educated enough to use them.

You can't really fault them for it...

Yes but their governments can take some more intitiatives to educate their people.

[WarrenG]

Clint,

I disagree that you're ignorant, as from your posts you're clearly intelligent and level-headed, but I'd say you're a little uninformed.

A +1 from me that birth rate is a symptom, not the root cause. In the US birth rates dropped after industrialisation, even at a time when birth control was either not heard of, or was frowned upon (even banned in some states).

This is human nature at work - when life expectancy is lower, it makes sense to have as many kids as possible. The more kids you have, the more chance you'll get one whose genetically more able. If you have 8 kids, one of them might be smart enough to move and get a city job, and send money back.

If your country is rich and has more perceived opportunities for advancement, it makes more sense to have fewer kids, and then focus your resources on them, as having a genetic fluke is less necessary in terms of getting your genes through to the next generation. Of course, we don't think like this consciously, (The Invention of Lying parodies this well), but that's part of our decision making strategy.

As well as being human nature, more kids are also more practical than less kids in poverty-stricken areas. In the US, prior to industrialisation, people lived in agrarian-type societies/economies, and the more children you have, the more hands you have to work on the farm. At that time, birth rates were higher, not unlike that we see in the developing world now.

You're assuming that all these kids are a huge drain on the family. But child labour rates are higher in poorer countries, and the consensus among researchers is that this is a causal link, going from poverty to child labour. As the child gets older, he eventually reaches a point where he's contributed more to the family financially than he's taken from it.

Also, kids look after their parents in old age. This is less common in Western cultures, but other countries would think it very strange to outsource this job to retirement homes. If life expectancy is lower, the more kids you have, the more chance you'll have someone to look after you when you need it.

Also, you're right about the education of the culture - education tends to correlate with lower birth rates. This isn't fertility education by the way, it's general education, which gives women more employment options than 'mother'.

Why the developing world is this way instead of another is whole other debate. But I'd place the blame for that higher up the food chain, and posit that people in these countries are behaving naturally and rationally by having larger families.

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Watching the news about the current draught or refugee issue in the Kenya/Somalia area and the many children and babies starving to death. What really annoys me with such cases is why do they keep having so many babies when it's quite clear that these people cannot afford to have them?

We can donate all we can to help these people but the root of the problem is still too many babies from a poverty stricken community that cant' afford them. My guess is the ignorant and somewhat irresponible men there who don't care about the consequences of impregnating the women at leisure. I doubt there was much family planning involved.

Then the TV showed this one woman who walked for a week with her 8 kids to reach the refugee camp. What's she doing with 8 kids? Just makes you want to shake your head. But if it's really the men who are at fault here, then there clearly needs to be a massive educational effort implemented.

I agree that it's incredibly ignorant of poor people to have some many children. They're only thinking of themselves (i.e. having someone to take care of them in old age), assuming they're thinking at all. How dare they bring children into such a miserable lifestyle?

The men are terrible. They rape and beat women who ask to use condoms.

You can't just say "it's just the culture." What about Redneck culture? What about Nazi culture? Is that "just the culture? Oh I guess it's only minority cultures that are supposedly sacred.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Clint,

I disagree that you're ignorant, as from your posts you're clearly intelligent and level-headed, but I'd say you're a little uninformed.

First of all, ignorance does not mean "unintelligent" or "not level-headed." Ignorance means "uninformed," which is what you just called him.

ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)
adj.
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Secondly, I thought it would be appropriate to let him know his post was "ignorant" since his post involved calling these people ignorant and on top of it pinning the blame for poverty's cycle on them.

[Peter Bourke]

I thought I'd chime in with a Bo Burnham lyrical quote:

"Go to a vagina orchard, count 1,2,3... Spin that plant around you've got a third world country (whirled **** tree)"

On a more serious note, I'd like to propose that the intensity and prevalence of religiosity in third world countries contributes to the massive birth rates and sexual diseases in the country, due to the forbiddance of contraception.

Too often with the catholic church, at least, it's a case of the old "Aids is bad but not as bad as condoms..."

Just look at this from 2009: Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse | World news | guardian.co.uk

[Dreamweave]

suffering is a gift. let them have their kids and watch each other die.
if they survive, they'll be stronger than you'll ever be.

[Focus Driblet]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Unfortunately, rape and AIDS is still rampant over there where there is a macho attitude among the men.

So a lot of the kids 'over there' are a result of rape?

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

First of all, ignorance does not mean "unintelligent" or "not level-headed." Ignorance means "uninformed," which is what you just called him.



Secondly, I thought it would be appropriate to let him know his post was "ignorant" since his post involved calling these people ignorant and on top of it pinning the blame for poverty's cycle on them.

Rock and hard place.

I apologise for making it seem like you called Clint unintelligent and not level-headed, and thanks for providing the dictionary definition of ignorant. Also, thanks for bolding the relevant part for me!

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Why the developing world is this way instead of another is whole other debate. But I'd place the blame for that higher up the food chain, and posit that people in these countries are behaving naturally and rationally by having larger families.

I agree with your points Warren and they are not new plus I ultimately do hold their governments responsible. No matter what the rationale was for the parents to have larger families, the end results have been unquestionably devastating. I still hold my original position - are the parents ignorant? If being uninformed on how to best modify their behaviours given the changes in the region of no farmable land, then yes. But this doesn't mean that they are bad people (except for those cases where pregnancies were not planned as with the rapes which do take place - I don't have figures but CNN/BBC regularly reports these). It goes back to the lack of education no thanks to their government.

The Chinese had to bring in measures because China was changing. The Chinese also had the same type of motivations for having larger families originally (working the land as well as taking care of the parents which is huge in Asia). But the government felt that China itself could no longer sustain such growing populations so they introduced their single child per family law.

It all comes down to the necessity of having to do something to manage the root of the problems. I still remember the World Vision commercials when I was a kid during the 60s and looks like 50 years later, things haven't really changed all that much in Africa except for perhaps some corrupt government officials enjoying luxuries at the expense of their people.

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Secondly, I thought it would be appropriate to let him know his post was "ignorant" since his post involved calling these people ignorant and on top of it pinning the blame for poverty's cycle on them.

My position doesn't change as it's simple economics. When you have a lack of resources that can't support a population, poverty results. Now why did this population keep growing despite the changing conditions for the region? Well, another way to ask this again is if you were a mother, would you want to bring in a child into this world knowing that the chances of survival beyond the first year are minimal?

The ultimate blame would be the governments involved who didn't provide the education for it's people. So are the people uninformed (ignorant)? Still yes because they didn't get the proper education from their governments given the changing states of the region. This is not a blast on their culture. It's a blast towards the failure of educating a population that desperately needs it given the worst draught in 60 years.

My comments about tact also still do not change given the overall attack tone used towards another poster. I may disagree with other posters but would NEVER attack them. I'm sure that all of my fellow members here who like myself, have had over 20+ years of corporate life with a track record, have seen our share of what is tactful communications and what is not. We've seen who gets promoted and who gets left behind so many times now that it's almost predictable.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Beyond all the judgmental knee jerk reactions going on in this thread, I agree with you Clint. If you can barely or can't take care of yourself, you have no business having a child. Yes, rapes happen- that's an entirely different issue. Obviously, dig a bit deeper and what is really needed is more education. Poverty stricken areas having too many kids is merely a symptom prompting one to look deeper. Dig deep enough and the true problem is that people see themselves as fragmented individuals scraping by just to survive. There is very little cohesiveness to humanity. We band together only to help ourselves and those who can't help us may as well rot in some third world country. Anything other than addressing the fact that humans are currently and have been occupying the earth like a self destructing virus is not going deep enough.

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

If you can barely or can't take care of yourself, you have no business having a child.

Well said.

[Becoming]

I have a dear friend that was born, raised and still lives in poverty in Kenya. When I met her she and her husband had three children and a few years ago gave birth to a fourth. When she was pregnant with her youngest daughter, she expressed great concern at what others would think about her bringing another child into her impoverished condition. At this time, her husband had what was considered a very good job as a manager in the hospitality industry, but the family still lived in extreme poverty as his wages (working seven days a week) still could not cover their basic needs and they still lived in the slums in Nairobi.

What needs to be realized here are a few things. For one, birth control pills are only something like 80% effective and condoms even less so. Not to mention that they are not always accessible due to cost or simple availability.

I was once at a women's organization in Nairobi and while being given a tour by the president of that organization and other key staff members, there was a medium-sized box of condoms left in a bathroom with a note about AIDS transmission and an encouragement to take as many condoms as needed. The president and a couple of the other female staff members were mortified and apologized profusely for this discovery. Only one staff member spoke up in support of the intent of the person who had anonymously left these condoms and the attached note. My point being that cultural stereotypes about birth control are not the same all over. We cannot look at Kenyans or Somalians through a western lens and expect that we know better.

Bear in mind, also, that what you are proposing could be construed as a form of social/political genocide. I don't say this to insult your idea, just to ask you to look at it more broadly. Kenyans and Somalians (and others living in abject poverty) are not to blame for their conditions. Read about the history of the IMF, as well as the resources that have been stolen, exploited and destroyed in these countries. As someone mentioned further up, we (us living in first-world countries) are complicit in these crimes as we are among the main benefactors of these exploits. Again, we can't just look at poverty in other countries and assume that we know why it exists. There's a deep, intentional history going on there and corrupt governments are not helping.

Back to what I was saying about social/political genocide, however. To encourage Kenyans and Somalians to stop enjoying sex and the joy of having children is to ask them to intentionally decrease (or cease) their reproduction because their countries have been exploited by very powerful forces. I forget his name, but some time ago there was a U.S. politician who proposed sterilizing women on welfare. Not surprisingly, most of these women (I think he was in Mississippi or some other southern state) were women of color.

I agree with you on not having children that you cannot afford. In my friends case, however, and many others, her option was to stop having sex with her husband or to abort her child. Thankfully, she chose to have her daughter (and named her after me, which I consider a supreme blessing).

Again, no offense intended, but proposing that poor people stop having children is why a lot of girls in impoverished countries are killed at birth, sold during adolescence or otherwise abandoned. Think about it, in a society where male labor is valued (and almost nonexistent for women), a couple who has three consecutive girls without a boy is tempted to kill, sell, marry off at a young age or abandon their daughters while continuing to shoot for a boy. The idea being that girls are extra mouths to feed and provide shelter for, which a family cannot afford.

Lastly, let's look at China's one-child policy. First of all, the wealthy can have more than one child, as they can afford the additional tax or fee involved in doing so. Therefore, this rule most heavily affects middle to lower class families. Think about the families who lost their only child in the earthquake that recently struck there. Chinese culture dictates that children are who care for aging parents (BTW, this same applies in Kenya as there is no welfare system or social security to care for aging adults). Without a child to take care of them during their senior years, what will happen to these parents when they are too old to care for themselves? Nice try, but in my opinion, this may not be the best solution for the long run.

Forgive any typos, please. I'm in a hurry.

[ZephyrusX]

Thank you for your insightful post Becoming.

I really don't get the point in blaming impoverished parents and that is the vibe I am picking up from a few members in this thread. Education is an important correlation between gender equality, women's economic and political power, and consequently, a correlate to the birth rate. The term 'ignorant' seems to be used in a rather dubious fashion in this thread, however. Impoverished mothers know better than us the live experiences and realities of high maternal, infant and child mortality rates; they don't need Westerners telling them otherwise. What they need from us is meaningful support in the form of political and global economic change.

The crux of the matter really boils down to poverty and national/international governments. Either we can support human populations in embracing their sexuality and reproduction in a way that is healthy by not only providing women access to political forums and the economy, but also providing families access to reproduction education, contraceptives, maternal care and abortion. Or we tell them to stop having babies and to stop having sex. The latter doesn't work. Impoverished populations in West and abroad have been told to take 'private' responsibility for their birth rate for ages and it just doesn't work. More importantly, the latter option is dehumanizing.

Lets stop with the trivalizing 'chastisements' and try to understand each other.

[Clint Cora]

Thanks for your views so far. So what's the ultimate solution? Don't forget that poverty in Africa is nothing new. Certainly in existence before my time and really, how much has changed?

I don't agree with many of China's policies but I think they were onto something with their law. And I imagine that those families who did lose children will be given the right to more children again.

In many ways, the current strategies used in the last few decades can be questionable. It's almost like trying to fight the entire Chinese army - they just keep coming and coming like there's no end ...

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Thanks for your views so far. So what's the ultimate solution? Don't forget that poverty in Africa is nothing new. Certainly in existence before my time and really, how much has changed?

I don't agree with many of China's policies but I think they were onto something with their law. And I imagine that those families who did lose children will be given the right to more children again.

In many ways, the current strategies used in the last few decades can be questionable. It's almost like trying to fight the entire Chinese army - they just keep coming and coming like there's no end ...

There are also negative repercussions of chinas one child policy. Ie The mass abortion of girls and the current situations in parts of china where males outnumber females several times over.

But, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are 18 - 30 year old Somalian, will you wait until there is economic stability before you start having kids?

Since, it is highly unlikely that you can pick up condoms at your local Somalian grocers will you also give up sex to avoid getting a girl pregnant?

What do you think would happen to the world if all people in undeveloped and developed country stopped having kids? What would have happened to china and India decades ago when a huge percentage of the populace were farmers, if they decided to wait until they can afford to have kids? Or would you recommend that all the hundreds of millions of poor Chinese, Indian and African farmers not have kids until their poverty is wiped out?

I am not calling you wrong, I just don't think you have thought through what you are saying. I mean would you be willing to have your linage die out by having no kids?

[Clint Cora]

Originally Posted by Orecle

But, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are 18 - 30 year old Somalian, will you wait until there is economic stability before you start having kids?

Since, it is highly unlikely that you can pick up condoms at your local Somalian grocers will you also give up sex to avoid getting a girl pregnant?

What do you think would happen to the world if all people in undeveloped and developed country stopped having kids? What would have happened to china and India decades ago when a huge percentage of the populace were farmers, if they decided to wait until they can afford to have kids? Or would you recommend that all the hundreds of millions of poor Chinese, Indian and African farmers not have kids until their poverty is wiped out?

I am not calling you wrong, I just don't think you have thought through what you are saying. I mean would you be willing to have your linage die out by having no kids?

If it was me in Somalia, it would largely depend on what type of information or education I get. If I had access to every true bit of info, then I would honestly not burden my family with any additional responsibilities that we can't afford.

As for the other scenarios mentioned, (and you are not going to like my answer), the region might have a chance to recover.

Now, I'm not an economist (got bored out of my wits during those classes at MBA school) and perhaps you would be more knowledgable than I would be in this field. I'll return the main question back to you.

Based on what's happening out there now plus what has happened over the years in the same region as well as other parts of the world, what would be YOUR best solution?