PopulationI
NO
we should be about humanity – our
numbers, and how we live and behave
towards each other and nature.
Mohan is right to deplore coercive poli-
cies, but underplays the political fear of
(and for) an India (despite progress in nor-
malizing small families) on track to be the
most populous in the world. I had choice,
but millions of Indian women are among
the 200 million worldwide with an unmet
need for modern family planning.
Choice is the watchword. People who
can’t yet choose smaller families must
be empowered to do so. People who can,
especially in the Global North, must rec-
ognize the value of making that positive
choice. Beyond that, we all have choices
to make about our global future, per-
sonally and collectively – as neighbour-
hoods, countries and globally. Imagine
what the world could be, if our societies
organized around a ‘fewer people con-
suming less stuff’ vision?
MOHAN: Sara is right in showing us
that population has grown, especially
in poor countries, over the last 70 years.
But as Amartya Sen has shown, we are
now reaching the proportions of people
that existed at the beginning of the 17th
century, when populations of non-White
people began a massive decline, even as
White populations increased and con-
quered the world.
What she misses is that the total fertility
rate is declining in most parts of the world.
It is not enough, however, to provide con-
traceptives to women to enhance demo-
graphic transition; what is also needed is
food, employment, security for children’s
lives and healthcare.
What an obsession with population
numbers completely misses out is who is
consuming resources. In other words, we
must look at what is called effective pop-
ulation. The poorest 20 per cent of the
population consumes less than two per
cent of global resources,
while the top two per
cent consume 80 per
cent of global resources.
If saving resources to
prevent the calami-
tous effects of global
warming is indeed a pri-
ority, attention should be
diverted to the consump-
tion among the rich all
over the globe, not the
reproduction among the
poor.
No amount of ‘reproductive choice’,
giving women an array of contraceptives,
can bring reproductive justice.SARA: It is true most total fertility rates
are declining worldwide (but not in sub-
Saharan Africa) and I’m glad Mohan
agrees simple numbers hide much –
specifically gross inequalities between
(and within) rich and poor countries.
I agree 100 per cent that the richest
must cut consumption of resources
deepest and quickest, but don’t like the
implication behind saying ‘reproduction
amongst the poor’ is not a priority. The
truth is all women want and should have
the freedom to choose when and how
many babies to have.
They also want their children to
thrive, so I’m a fan of Sen’s notion of
equality of autonomy: the ability and
means to choose our life course. The
famous I=PxAxT equation helps join
things up. If our Impact on nature is
the product of our Population numbers,
times our Affluence/consumption, times
the Technologies deployed, how can we
optimize PxAxT so its impact is positive?
So significant a multiplier is P, it cancels
out efficiency gains in energy use and
land productivity. This makes thinking
about all three together essential.
My ‘fewer people consuming less
stuff’ idea of the future is based on Sen’s
principles. Some places with falling pop-
ulations are already trying this, making
capacity-building, culture and human
welfare their development focus. Mean-
while, 40 per cent of all pregnancies in
poor and rich countries are ‘unintended’.
How come?MOHAN: The IPAT equation is deeply
problematic; it would make sense only
if we lived in a perfectly egalitarian
world. It does not tell us who is actually
consuming the resources and damaging
the environment in the
real world. It is a grand
abstraction that has been
incisively, and exten-
sively, critiqued by Betsy
Hartmann.
It is true that there
is an unmet need for
contraception. I do not
argue that this is not to
be met. On the contrary,
my argument is that the
unmet need for contra-
ception must be seenSARA PARKIN
Sara Parkin is a Principal Associate
with The Sustainability Literacy
Project and a new board member
of the British-based Population
Matters. She has written several
books, the latest being The Positive
Deviant.‘CHOICE IS THE
WATCHWORD. PEOPLE
WHO CAN’T YET CHOOSE
SMALLER FAMILIES
MUST BE EMPOWERED
TO DO SO’ – SARA
NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2019 45