As always, you provide perspective, Jupe, along with information that goes a step beyong the lines of other offerings.

Could this ... could it be ... because ... because ...
Is this because you're adopted? Whaaaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaa! (Wicked adoptive parent laugh ... With only a few more days to razz before you leave our little blogging world, it was now or never to get the whaaahaaahaa in.)

Thanks for the great work!

Hey there - since this is likely directed at me, I will comment. I personally do NOT believe that the world is over-populated. I believe there is enough and to spare. We could talk a lot about ways in which current resources are not adequately used - even how the US government pays farmers BIG BUCKS not to grow crops (there's an article on this in the most recent Reader's Digest) or many other reasons why the idea of overpopulation is not universally accepted.
But, I digress, since you wanted to know why I (and other readers) may think that "rewarding" a family for having few children is not a good idea.

I think that it IS scary that Rwanda will start "imposing" child limits. Not because they are so much smaller than China or they don't seem to "prefer" boys over girls or any other reason except that the natural progression of a government "recommending" a certain family size is that it becomes mandatory and then there are punitive measures for those who do not comply. I could point to Romania, as well as China. Forcing women to have MORE children than they want is just as bad, IMO, than preventing them from having the ones they desire.
You pointed out that there are many reasons that families have lots of children, from a "social security" program to "tradition", to "pride". I also believe that there is a religious component to having a large family. I don't live in Rwanda - I live in the US, but *my* family size is a VERY spiritual, religious matter for me. Not only would I ignore any government "incentives" to decrease my family size, but I would (and do) teach my children that children are a blessing and "blessed is he with his quiver full". I would be HIGHLY offended at the government stepping in and saying otherwise. It would not surprise me that many Rwandese would find it religiously incongruent as well.

Having said that, I do think that Rwandese women could benefit from education about and access to birth control measures. It is still very alarming to me to see a gov't start to talk about "limits". No matter where you live in the world, I believe the government has no right to dictate how many children you have! (And yup, it happens in the good old USA too - but so far, it's "only" directed at foster parents and in some states, adoptive parents.)

You pointed out that many children will never reach adulthood and there is a severe lack of infrastructure. I agree - and why not address THOSE issues FIRST, before imposing family size limits.

And, I totally agree with this statement you made:
"If family sizes are decreased, I believe there needs to be a simultaneous, concentrated program focused on health education and increasing both the quality and availability of health care so that those three children actually have a chance to make it to adulthood. I also believe that some of the great brainpower focusing on the over-population problem needs to extend their focus to include the evolution of the traditional ‘social security’ system provided by a large family … and how it can grow as families shrink."

I'd like to see the people who can actually make a difference (as opposed to the bureaucratic ones who simply talk about the need to make a difference!) talk about options OTHER than population control. What about getting access to clean water? Adequate health care, including access to needed medications? Transportation? Jobs? Education? I believe as those issues are addressed, concerns about family size will naturally fade.

Holly

I, too, do not believe that there is not enough food and resources in the world to care for everyone. I have relatives who are farmers and paid NOT to produce and I see the waste everywhere and cannot believe that. I also have seen programs which taught people how to raise food more efficiently and better in different areas of the world and the great success they have had as they educated and changed lives.

I get very concerned when people begin talking about giving incentives for smaller families as I think it is a very short step from there to mandating family size and mandating how people raise their children, what they teach them, etc. Yes, some standards of decency for treatments of people in general need to be maintained by governments and that includes how parents treat children and efforts to get rid of abuse, but many studies have shown that education and support do more to improve conditions in homes than punitive measures only. I believe that the same is true with family size. If people do not desire to have more children and don't have the education to know how to limit their family size, providing that knowledge would be a great benefit to them. But, as with all types of education, those who educate have a responsibility to let people know what their options are and let them choose for themselves. Programs targeting only limiting family size would most likely not be "giving options" but simply telling them what to do. Aren't there much better ways to help people learn to support themselves and the children they choose to have? I say a resounding "YES"!

Sandra...

I can't BELIEVE you've been holding out on the Whaaaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaa!
all this time ... what cruel and unusual punishment you do inflict on me...

Hi Holly,
While this blog was not really 'directed' at you, I am glad for your response/dialogue ... opening a dialogue on the topic was the point...

I agree that, in principle, there are some resources of which there are plenty to accomodate every person living on the planet, perhaps with some to spare IF the coffers were 'world coffers' and not for each country. The fact that there is a surplus of a great deal of food and land for cultivation in the States in no way impacts the rest of the world being that economies work the way they do.

As a matter of fact, in addition to USG subsidies to farmers not to grow anything, there are ridiculous subsidies that make staples, like rice and oil produced in the States so much cheaper than that of any small producer living in a country half-a-world away, that those those small producers can not make a businees to support him/her self/ his/her family because they can not compete with the government subsidized prices.

I totally agree that the waste being perpetrated in the US and around the world in developed nations is abhorrent and long strides, not just steps, should be taken to stop this.

Unfortunately, however, in real-life terms, we have a system driven mightily by money and the drive for money. Even so-called 'humanitarian' efforts coming from the US are related to basic economics (sometimes even not-so-basic econmics.)

Like you, I also am shy of having governments tell families what to do, per se. Direct limiting of family numbers would be scary, but since that is in no way what the Rwandans are discussing, I think the point in this particular situation is moot. I understand your fear that Rwanda would become like China or Romania (though I know nothing of the story in Romania) as I know well the Rwandan culture and people, I have do not share your fear based on offering 'incentives' for having smaller families. Rwandans are very slow and hesitant to change ... and they are very good at taking systems that are quite western and making them their own, whether it be religions or educational systems or developmental schemes or environmental measures. Always, it is a hybrid that emerges. (I'm sure you know this, too, as you know Africa well and this is a truly wonderful, at least to me, truly African thread that runs so true throughout the continent.)

I am, however, rethinking, based on your and other arguments, the idea of dis-incentives for more than a certain number of children. I can see the most possibility for manipulation of this factor in a way that is not toward the purpose. Your and Abliss' point about the negative impact and unfairness of 'punishment' is well taken. I can completely understand how that should not happen and how punitive measures are what limits choice.

To me, incentives of course seek to influence the choice, but do not limit the choice. Dis-incentives would do that.

Your point on religion as a basis for large families, Holly, I can understand and if all families became large the way yours has, by caring for, loving and adopting children who are alive and in desperate need of all of those things, I would say give an incentive for large families with extra love on the side.

With regard to the topic at hand, perhaps a solution would be to also give incentives to Rwandan families to adopt orphans rather than give birth to six, ten, twelve children. That way, everyone could have their large families, for religious or cutlural or personal reasons, AND children looking ahead to a very lonely, difficult life would find instead a chance at a completely new world in a new family... since many, many families are already taking care of orphans in their extended family, it would just be a matter of making things 'official' through legal adoption procedures that aren't used so much domestically. While it wouldn't be THAT simple, this could be an idea to explore.

Perhaps that some fine tuning that would help family planning incentives sit better with you and others? Maybe incentives for giving birth to less than three children while at the same time offering incentives for formally adopting orphans (I would want the definition in this case to be both parents lost, rather than the common one parent loss ... but too early for details, ha ha.)

I also agree with you that the bigger issues of health, clean water, infrastructure, etc... all those topics that are addressed via endless 'aid' projects sponsored by churches and states alike need to be addressed (still) but in a whole new way. Billions of dollars have been spent but in a way that creates such dependence that people are being increasingly marginalized, which is the antithesis of the 'development' goals. For me, though, I don't think it is a 'first' thing ... population, development and resources are all inter-related, so for me they need to be addressed holistically and not in indiviudal vacuums.

The one resource that you didn't address, and my main point as to why the population growth in Rwanda does need to slow down (actually, in many places) is the unavailability of land. What do you propose for this issue? Any concrete ideas?

I'm kind of a nature-valley-granola girl in most ways, but making a plan is not a bad thing. I think procreation is great! When I imagine all the things John Lennon asks us to imagine in his song by the same name, I can add to the mix everyone giving birth to endless, large families...

But since those conditions don't exist here in real time, I search and ponder and try to figure out what other options exist.

Ideally, if you and I and Abliss and any others that want to join the conversation do come up with some interesting and innovative and BALANCED ideas, I would be happy to forward them to the people with whom I used to work in Rwanda ... people who are now activists on many sides of many fences and/or decision makers...

So maybe at least this dialogue will not be in vain...

I look forward, if you have the time, to your ideas about how to address the 'biggie': the land issue.

Thanks for reading, Holly, and thanks for your time...

Hi Abliss,

Thank you so much for sharing your ideas.

Please read my response to Holly's comment as well, as I site both of your responses for some reform of my own opinions concerning dis-incentives.

Again, Abliss, I think it is important to realize that THERE ARE NO FAMILY LIMITS being suggested in Rwanda. No Rwandan I know would tolerate such a thing.

Incentives, as I say in the response to Holly, do still allow for a choice either way, albeit weighing one choice over the other.

I do agree with both you and Holly that family planning on its own is not an answer. There are programmes focused on agricultural efficiency happening in Rwanda as we speak, but the fact remains that as the population grows there becomes less and less land to cultivate.

So now, I ask you as I did Holly, if you have the time... help with the biggest question...

What do you suggest, if over-population is not a problem, to do concerning the tiny amount of land that exists inside the boundaries of Rwanda which is leading to increased conflict and frustration among Rwandans?

I really enjoyed your comment, Abliss ... thank you for taking the time to participate in the dialogue... I hope you continue...

I really have nothing to add - but I would like to thank you all for such well thought out - and well presented arguments and discussion. I've learned a lot.

Jupe, thanks for the dialogue. I don't know what to do about the land issue, but I do know I'd like to think about it and would love to be a part of a dialogue about it. And thanks for the long, thoughtful response. I do like your idea of "bonuses" for Rwandese families who are willing to adopt. ;)

Rock on, Jupe.