To boost birthrates, we must give women the freedom of choice | Letters
Prof Devi Sridhar’s fine article gives a broad overview of a critical issue facing humanity that is far too often avoided: overpopulation (When desperate measures to persuade women to have children fail, it’s time for fresh thinking, 2 April). She gives sub-Saharan Africa as an example, but the issue applies globally.
We are over 8 billion people on a planet that scientists estimate could sustainably support around 2 billion at a modest western living standard. Yes, fertility rates – the number of children a woman gives birth to – are falling, but too slowly. The world’s population is still rising by 80 million every year, each of whom will need food, water, accommodation and more, when these are already in short supply.
Prof Sridhar calls for a more sympathetic view on immigration – a good call, but no solution to overpopulation. Instead, we should give more support to the excellent work being done by charities in sub-Saharan Africa. They are freeing girls from the cultural norm of having a large family by providing them with school places, often available only to boys. One survey found that providing girls with secondary school education dropped their fertility rate from the traditional six or seven to four, coupled with opportunities to find employment. Girls supported through tertiary education later had on average just two children.
Richard Vernon
Oxford
I have no disagreement with Devi Sridhar’s point about immigration. But when discussing falling birthrates, she only briefly mentions the obstacles to having children, focusing instead on women’s freedom of choice. She talks of women being able “to make choices based on the kind of happy life they want to live”, and that “it’s now acceptable and feasible … to decide against child-raising”.
Even setting aside the fact that, historically, contraceptives were more widespread and family sizes smaller than we assume, these points about women’s choices are certainly true. But I am struck by how much my peers describe a lack of freedom. What Prof Sridhar fails to express are the ways in which those obstacles to child-raising, rarely addressed by government incentives, significantly impact women’s freedom of reproductive choice. I know many women who want another child, but find it all but impossible because of the impact on their careers, their finances, their bodies and their families.
Having only one or two children might appear to be a victory of choice and access to contraceptives, but the reality is that those obstacles make it hard for women to have the children they desire. It is no coincidence that South Korea, which is failing to raise its birthrate, ranks at the bottom of the Economist’s list of working conditions for women. If people were truly able to “make choices based on the kind of happy life they want”, it would mean the freedom to decide not just against child-raising but also for child-raising.
Robyn Boeré
Oslo, Norway
I appreciate Devi Sridhar pointing out that declining fertility rates are a success story reflecting women gaining more choices over their bodies and lives. The trend towards smaller families is not a new one, and it has never been something to lament, but media outlets around the world sadly continue to portray it as a crisis.
The panic over the economic impacts of smaller populations is absurd when you consider that the alternative – continuous population growth on a finite planet – can only lead to disaster. The UN projects that we are on track for 10 billion people by the 2050s, which will make it increasingly difficult to end environmental degradation and avert the worst outcomes of the climate crisis. Let’s be honest: a people shortage is the opposite of our problem.
Prof Sridhar rightly points to immigration as a neglected policy solution that can help counter the effects of population ageing. Better preventive healthcare to keep older citizens fit and healthy for as long as possible is another one. So is investing in children’s health and education, improving their wellbeing and the odds that they’ll eventually become productive members of the workforce. We also need to recognise the many socioeconomic benefits of reduced population pressure, such as lower housing costs and less competition for jobs. Instead of fighting low birthrates, let’s plan for a more sustainable future by prioritising people over profits and ensuring that women everywhere are free to choose their family size.
Olivia Nater
Population Connection, Washington DC, US
Prof Devi Sridhar underlines what many women have known for years – this manufactured panic about falling birthrates is little more than misogyny, with a heap of racism thrown in for good measure. If a simple lack of working-age population were really the problem, immigration from countries with a growing fertility rate is an obvious salve. But for some reason, no one wants to acknowledge that.
Victoria Williams
London
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.