Thomas Malthusian was a philosopher who followed the Darwin thought "survival of the fittest." Malthusians, those who subscribe to his philosophies, believe that overpopulation is the key cause of poverty. While overpopulation is indeed a threat to poverty, blaming a problem that has been threatening the world for centuries solely on overpopulation overlooks too many other factors. For example, research shows that it is not a scarcity of food, but an inability to afford food that affects the families of lower socioeconomic classes. Malthusians claim that overpopulation can hinder human rights; therefore the ends justify the means. In other words, they believe that it is okay to coerce and/or force sterilization and other means of birth control upon women because in the end the benefits outweigh the loss. Organizations such as the World Bank argue that population control is an essential component of an important economic strategy (Hartman 13-41). The value of human lives should not and can not be calculated by an economic formula. According to international law, human rights are rights that every individual has upon birth. Human rights philosophy is based on the idea that every life has equal value. Therefore, no person's quality of life can be violated or sacrificed to improve the quality of life for another person.
In regards to human rights concerns, there are major health concerns associated with these state controlled family planning programs. In most instances, fear of population control has lead to an increase of family planning programs. This would lead one to believe that women are being opened to more health care and birth control opportunities; however, this is not necessarily the case. There is a crucial trend in the family planning programs in developing countries versus developed countries. Almost all family planning programs in developing countries are involuntary programs. In developed countries, women of lower socioeconomic classes also face involuntary sterilization, but it is much more common in developing countries. One explanation for this is due to the fact that governments of developing countries have historically had more power over the family planning programs, which essentially made it legal in to violate women's reproductive rights. In these countries, women's bodies have been put at the mercy of government powers. These government powers tend to ignore the root of the problem in favor of quick results, which may or may not actually lead to population decline in their respective country (Pillai & Wang). Many women are sterilized without their knowledge, and some who agree initially regret it later. Many women are forced to make quick decisions on the spot, persuaded by money or threats. In a 1985 WHO (World Health Organization) study of sterilized women from Columbia , Nigeria , the Phillipines, and the UK , a range of 1 to 6 percent of women regretted undergoing the operation. A 1987 WHO survey shows that over ten percent of Mexican women wish they could reverse the sterilization. In India , over 70 percent of sterilizations are performed in unhygienic camps. In fall of 1985, the low health standards in a Maharashtran camp caused one death and seventeen serious prolonging health issues. The woman who died screamed in pain because the anesthetic was not effective. The doctors ignored her, continued to operate, and she died. In developing countries, being withholding information and lying to the patients is common. In a Latin American sterilization camp, there were more nurses being trained to insert IUDs (IntraUterine Devices) than there were to remove them. This led to diseases and infections because many women were not able to get the IUDs removed in time. Many women who came to the hospital and wanted the IUDs taken out early were rejected. In both cases, oftentimes the removal of an IUD was dangerously performed by an untrained nurse (Hartman).
The most well known example of a state controlled family planning program is the One-Child Policy established in China . Although China 's population has declined due to the One-Child Policy, an important question remains: What is the greater violation of human rights--the potential threat of overpopulation or the methods used against women to fight overpopulation? We know that overpopulation can hinder human rights, but can violating human rights to a further extreme really solve the problem? Do these ends really justify the means? Today in China , what was originally started as a family planning program has become a government controlled, state planning program. According to Chairman Mao, babies were to be controlled under a state plan run the same way that grain and steel were controlled. The first Chinese family planning program in 1971 is proof that population decline can happen in China without the reproductive rights violations the One-Child Policy practices. The 1971 motto for the family plan program was: "Later, Longer, Fewer." This meant advocacy for later marriage ages, longer periods between children, and fewer children per couple. This program was founded on the principle of providing health care to rural (and usually most impoverished) areas of China . The program was successful, but the government wanted to push the results of further. First, incentives were offered to the women who agreed to be sterilized. In the late 1970s, sterilization stopped being rewarded and coercion and force were on the rise. The One Child Policy started in 1979 and was founded initially only to strongly encourage birth control, albeit forced coercions did occur. By 1980, the One Child Policy was no longer an option; it had become an official mandate. A woman from the village of Guizhou recalls her experience; a common experience for many families of rural China : "They often take things, your furniture, your car, your pig, your chickens, your preserved meat [if you resist sterilization]" (Hartman 157-172). In China , a lawyer named Chen Guangcheng offered his legal services to defend women who were victims of the One Child Policy. The Chinese government, notorious for oppressing political dissidents, placed Chen under house arrest. In August 2006, when Chen went to report the beating and violence against one of his family members, he disappeared. He reappeared a few months later and was then incarcerated under bogus charges of public disturbance and sentenced to 51 months in jail (Sui). Although population has declined, in other aspects, the plan has backfired. In Chinese Culture boys are valued over girls. As of October 17, 2006, statistics show that this mindset has led to a population of 60 million more boys than girls. Another problem is that there is an aging population with seniors and fewer children. This leads a lack of people for the workforce (NPR). We can see from the Chinese example that simply forcing sterilization, while it can lead to population decline, also leads to other sets of unpredicted problems to face. A society with so few women will continue to exploit the rights of women. In some cases having a daughter in such desperate times is considered a blessing to families. Unfortunately, the more common attitude is to hope another family would have the daughter to whom they would marry their son to. To avoid high abortion rates and in hopes of balancing the ratio, China has legally agreed to allow families to have one more child if their first-born is a daughter (NPR). Statistics do not look promising; however, and experts estimate that by 2020 China will have 40 million unmarried young men. As aforementioned, because of the preference for sons in Chinese culture, the rarity of females will not equate a higher value. Instead, there may be a similar result similar to the one in India . In India girls are often abducted and violated or sold into marriage like slaves--the likelihood in China is that molestation and rape will increase (Grewal & Kishore).
India 's population control policies are the largest in the world and stem further back than China 's policies. India 's family planning programs are the first, dating back to the 1950s. Like China 's family planning programs, it used forced and coerced sterilization as a means of population control; however, unlike China , its population has continued to grow (Hartman 251-254). A July 2006 estimate quotes India 's current population at 1,095,351,995 people. When the programs started in 1950, the population estimate was at 357,561,000. Although China is currently the most populous country in the world (albeit it is the second largest country), according to Geohive.com, India's population will surpass China by over 2 million people by the year 2050, and India is only 1/3 the size of the United States. What went wrong in India ? Betsy Hartman writes, "Lack of respect translated into lack of results" (290). Instead of educating its citizens about temporary birth control methods such as condoms, the government encouraged the most extreme method of complete sterilization. The agents who worked for the government ignored health issues and overlooked the best interests of the women because if they did not meet a quota, they would not be paid their salary. The situation continued to escalate in 1975 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared Emergency Rule, using overpopulation as a means to suspend civil liberties. Couples who were not sterilized after three children were considered criminals and could face fines and or imprisonment, not to mention food rations were withheld from their family. 1976 was the most dramatic year for population control in India . The government resorted to violent force, and direct coercion, sterilizing 6.5 million people in only 6 months. All women were forced into this program, but the rich were given an option. Rich women were allowed to choose IUDs (a long term but not permanent method of birth control), while the poor women were offered only the option of sterilization (251-254). This mindset is connected to the Malthusian thought that if you eliminate the poor, poverty will cease to exist; however, there are obvious flaws in this plan. One can not simply kill all poor people, one has to analyze the reason why poverty exists. Although Indira Gandhi was not reelected and the number of sterilizations has dropped, serious issues still continue to exist. Female foeticide is most commonly associated with India . With modern technology, families can now use ultrasounds to determine the gender of their fetus. Due to the low status of women and the preference for males, female fetuses are frequently aborted. Promotions for these ultrasound tests prey on the idea that when girls are married off in India , the family must provide a dowry. Their slogans read, "It is better to pay 500 rupees now than 50,000 rupees (in dowry) later." Not only is this a serious human rights violation but it has also contributed to the low girl to boy ratio in India . In some Indian states, ratios go as low as 800:1,000; 8% to China 's 17%. These low ratios contribute to overpopulation. The low percentage of women in India has led to older men choosing younger and younger brides. As suggested by China 's initial family planning policy, later marriages could be one way to help control the population. (Grewal & Kishore).
Statistically speaking, there are parallels between high birth rates and poverty. Instead of attempting to sterilize all the poor, why not alleviate the reasons for poverty to encourage these people to have less children? By understanding the reasoning and need for many children, we can help reduce the birth rates by addressing their concerns. The top reasons for the connection with poverty and high birth rates are as follow: 1) high infant and child mortality rates, 2) financial security, 3) son preference, and 4) lack of education regarding the subject of birth control (Pillai & Wang, Hartman). UNICEF research shows that 10.5 million children die before their fifth birthday (2006 est.). This translates into 30,000 children a day. The 2004 global average for infant mortality rate, the number of children that die before their first birthday, is 54 deaths for every 1,000 live births. In developed countries this number is significantly lower, at only 5 deaths per 1,000 births. In developing countries, the average is higher, at 59 deaths per 1,000 births, and in least developed countries, it is a dramatic 98 deaths per 1,000 births. Losing a child is an incredible emotional tragedy for any parent. In families of lower socioeconomic classes, however, it is a financial loss as well. One explanation for high birth rates is because parents know that not all their children will survive, and poor families need the extra hand. Extra children can be used to help out around the house or the farm, or be sent out to work as an additional source of income. Poor families also have no luxury of a retirement plan so they depend on their children to take care of them at an old age when they can no longer work. Typically, if a family has more money, they are less inclined to have more children because they are either self sufficient, or because they tend to have a different mindset of raising their children and sending them to college (very costly). One way to stop population growth would be to improve health care for families in developing countries. If a family knew their child had a significant chance for survival, they would be much less likely to have so many children. Son preference is another reason for high birth rates. If the child is a daughter, some families may continue to have children until at least one son is born. One reason is that in many Asian cultures (predominantly in the regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, North India, and South East Asia ) men are valued over women. This is because women are viewed as the ones whom should work in the house, but seldom are the ones who join the workforce or obtain higher education. This limits the financial contribution a woman can give to a family. Women must have equal rights in order for population growth to decline. When women have the right to education and work, they are less likely to have as many children, because they will have a career in addition to the job of taking care of kids. This is because the culture in many of these countries is different. This mindset is passed down by their tradition and belief in tribalism. The community or a collective is valued over the individual. Unfortunately, women are expected to sacrifice their life and education to fulfill the needs of the family. This is one of the only ways to gain community acceptance. Women in Egypt are happy to agree to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in order to avoid public shame (Dawla, Hadi, & Wahab). Although most people should make sacrifices for their families at some point in their lifetime, the rules women in these societies are expected to follow are extreme to the point of oppression. Lastly, there just isn't a lot of information about birth control options given to developing countries, especially the most poor in the rural villages of these countries. Most people in rural villages don't know what a condom is. That is why it is so easy for the government to come into these villages and force sterilization on these women. Throughout history the poor have been looked down on as ignorant. The government often feels that the people don't need to or don't deserve to know the truth, so a lot of information about sterilization is withheld or simply overlooked during the birth control process (Hartman 243-267).
What can be done to solve both problems? Overpopulation is a legitimate problem, but so are the atrocious human rights violations. Developing countries have the obvious advantage of over developing countries in terms of financial resources. Although countries with a higher GDP tend to have lower birth rates, studies from countries such as Cuba , Sri Lanka , and the South-Indian state of Kerala show that poverty does not need to be a hindrance to safe and successful family planning programs. These countries have shown that there can be a decline in population if they increase employment opportunities, grant women equal social and legal status, and provide health care and education.
The situation in Cuba is by no means perfect, but women do have more freedom in Cuba than other Latin American countries. As of May 2005, "Save the Children USA" named Cuba as one of the 11 "developing countries most likely to succeed." This has no relation to monetary issues. Cuba has actively been implementing educational programs for girls. The report states that these 11 countries "can expect healthier, smaller families, lower child mortality rates and higher standards of living in the next ten years as a result, in part, of continued efforts to improve girls' education." This is not surprising due to the priority placed on education throughout Cuban history. Although Cuba was the poorest of 13 Latin American countries that participated in a UNESCO test, results showed that in this 1998 test Cuban students tested number one in both math and reading. The youth illiteracy rate in Cuba was nearly 0% in 1998. Additionally, the Cuban Family Code legislation states that men should equally contribute to household tasks (Schugurensky). Unfortunately, due to U.S.-imposed sanctions imposed in recent years, the quality of health care for Cubans has declined. Nonetheless, free family planning services are available to all citizens who choose to take advantage of the services. Cuba set a remarkable record between 1965 and 1980 when its birth rate fell by almost 50 percent (Hartman 294-295). This is the greatest decline in birth rate in the shortest amount of time. As of 1995, Cuba 's birth rate was 17 births per 1,000 women, only 2 points higher to America 's 15 per 1,000. In 1998 its infant mortality rate was only 6 deaths per 1,000 births (Save the Children USA).
Sri Lanka enjoys one of the lowest birth rates of any developing country despite its 1991 per capita income of only 500 USD. Although the current conservative government has cutback welfare to focus on economic development, previous to 1977 Sri Lanka was a welfare state that focused on human development. That status undoubtedly led to success. From 1946 to 1981 the infant mortality rate dropped from 150 deaths per 1,000 births to 18 deaths per 1,000. There are also more women than men in universities and many women have careers. This resulted in an average marriage age of 25, which is high for any developing country (Hartman 297). This is just one more example of how providing food, job and old-age security, and free education and health care led to success in population control.
Kerala is a unique state in India . Although Kerala's per capita income is the lowest in India , its poverty does not oppress the peoples quality of lives. In fact, Kerala has maintained a high quality of life relative to other Indian states. In Kerala there is a 90% literacy rate, while the overall Indian average is 52%. Its infant mortality rate is 17 deaths per 1,000 births, while India 's rate is 80 deaths per 1,000 births. In a 1991 population census, Kerala was found to be the only state in India with more females than males, a 104 to 101 ratio. The reason for all this success is because the state of Kerala governs under the belief that: "the foundation of equity rests on the political power of the poor." This is a very rare, yet successful ideology that has made Kerala's birth rate 18.1 in relation to the whole Indian average of 29.3 (1991 est.). This is not the usual trend. Most often, governments answer to those with money and oftentimes the popular voice is ignored. This inequality leads to a vicious cycle. The poor need more children to meet basic living standards and so they continue to contribute to population growth while the government continues to try to tame the growth my sterilizing these low-income families. The Keralan government's emphasis on human rights should be followed. The government pays special attention to education and improving the equality of women's status, which has lead to an increase of women who work. This leads to Kerala having the latest average marriage age in all of India . The government also concentrates on distributing equal health services for those of both urban and rural areas. The Keralan government does not ignore its poor, and its social policies to help all citizens equally have created a phenomenal formula other Indian states should follow (Hartman 298-300).
From Cuba , Sri Lanka , and Kerala, however, we have learned that compulsory sterilization programs are not necessary to achieve low birth rates. We have seen that even compulsory sterilization programs can be unsuccessful and can create new problems. Doctor D. N. Pai, a family planning director in Bombay once said, "You must consider it something like a war. There could be a certain amount of misfiring out of enthusiasm. There has been pressure to show results. Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people." (Hartman 243). Why resort to a violence and war if it is unnecessary? To dismiss human lives in such a manner is completely unjust.
By improving socioeconomic conditions and human rights there can be a win-win situation for everyone; both those concerned with overpopulation and those concerned with human rights violations. Violating human rights to limit population growth can not lead to better socioeconomic conditions and does not necessarily correlate to lower birth rates. Equality is what affects fertility. Hartman writes, "Take care of the people and they will take care of themselves."
Works Cited
"China Struggles to Maintain One-Child Policy." National Public Radio. Shanghai. 17 Oct. 2006. 6 Dec. 2006
El Dawa, Aida Seif, Amal A. Hadi, and Nadia A. Wahab. "Women's Wit Over Men's." Negotiating Reproductive Rights. Cumbria, UK: International Reproductive Rights Research Action Group, 1998. 69-107.
Global Statisics. 6 Dec. 2006
Grewal, Indu, and J. Kishore. "Female Foeticide in India." International Humanist and Ethical Union. 2 May 2004. 6 Dec. 2006
Hartman, Besty. Reproductive Rights & Wrongs. New York: Harper & Row, 1995.
Pillai, Vijayan K., and Guan-Zhen Wang. Women's Reproductive Rights in Developing Countries. Hants, England: Ashgate Limited, 1999.
Schugurensky, Daniel. "Unesco Report Ranks Cuban Students First in International Math and Reading Tests." History of Education. 2004. 6 Dec. 2006
"Some of World's Poorest Countries Show Most Progress in Educating Girls, Report Finds." Save the Children USA. 3 May 2005. 6 Dec. 2006
Sui, Cindy. "Activist on Trial After Exposing Abuse of China's One-Child Policy." Agence-Presse France 16 Aug. 2006. Lexis Nexis. USFCA, San Francisco. 6 Dec. 2006.
没有评论:
发表评论