Word out of Rwanda about the introduction of family planning measures that will, ideally, decrease population growth has been met with quite a mixed response from the general public and media outlets alike. It seems as though people have a need to over-compartmentalize, comparing situations that don’t have much in common simply because they address the same topic, in this case efforts by China to curb its population and those being considered by Rwanda.

Irony, folks… it’s a great thing. Does anyone else find it ironic that so many people are attempting to line up and scrutinize the need and actions of one of the largest (geographically), largest (in terms of population) countries to one the size of your large toe nail (geographically) with a population density double that of China and a growth rate higher than China’s was when it first instituted it’s infamous “One Child Policy?”

Rwanda, the 27th most densely populated country in the world with a growth rate of 2.45 – 3 % (depending on the source) has a population density of 343 people/square kilometer (214 people/square mile). It is a rural country with most of the population surviving through subsistence farming. And yes, this is the same Rwanda that experienced an excruciating genocide in 1994 that took the lives of a million people. The average number of children per family is six.

China, while being the world’s most populous country, is ranked 71 in the world for population density with 137 people per square kilometer (85 per square mile) a figure that doesn’t necessarily give a great representation of reality since much of the Chinese population is concentrated in extremely overpopulated urban centers. The current population growth rate in China is .59%, although at the time of the population control plan initiation in the 1970’s, it was over 2%. Because of their lack of resources to support the 1.3 billion people populating the country, they are trying to work toward 0% growth. The average Chinese family has 1.73 children per family (less in cities, more like 2.4 in rural areas.)

Here’s a question: does anyone else find it absolutely HILARIOUS, and more than a little disturbing, that one can have .73 of a child? In good ol’ US of A we average 2.09 --- which one of your children is the .09? Bizarre figures for a bizarre time in a bizarre world. Maybe they don’t remember how to do the ‘rounding’ exercises learned in elementary school mathematics classes… perhaps in the name of “accuracy” science and technology has road-blocked a bit of useful sense… or maybe it’s the same thing as the pricing game whereby when an item is priced at $6.99, buyers think “Gee, that’s only $6, I’ll take two,” instead of rounding up that big ol’ penny. Then again, it might just be me. After all, I might be the .09 of my family, so to speak…or it could be because I was adopted… please insert an evil laugh here, if you will.

Anyway, those are the raw statistics. But wait, there’s more… when a palm tree is being compared to asparagus, there will always be more bits that need to be looked at through a much clearer lens.

The Rwandan government is now trying to make a plan to address the fact that their small country cannot support all of the people living on it. Here are the main points that will probably be included in Rwanda’s family planning plan:

- Clear incentives for families with three children or less;
- Clear dis-incentives for larger families;
- Mandatory family planning counseling upon doctor/clinic/hospital visits for any reason;
- Free birth control, including higher-tech options, for instance IUD’s and Norplant;
- A comprehensive information dissemination campaign concerning family planning and birth control options.

Contrary to both some media reports and the interpretation of some media reports by other media reports (which, it seems to me, are where most of us are getting our information these days rather than going back to the source… is the internet one big game of ‘telephone’ with much the same result as when played ear-to-ear by a circle of children? Hm.) there is no indication of any sort of forced limiting of family size, circa China’s family planning policy. (FYI: technically, the one child limit in China is for city areas while two children are permitted per family in rural areas where a third child could also be approved if the first two were girls and/or were handicapped in some way.)

Also contrary to comparisons to the two policies, since Rwanda is a completely different culture than China, one in which girls are valued because of the dowries they receive from the family of their betrothed, and boys are valued because, well, they are boys, chances of there being a deficit of one sex or the other because of even a China-esque policy would be next to none.

Context, context, context.

[Continued...]