Why do famine stricken 3rd world countries keep having children?

Question

I'm asking this question somewhat knowing the answer, but I'm so angered by the suffering I cant understand why the women(and their are millions who are not raped that are in a loving commited relationship) would want to bring a child into such misery. I realize that in many cases their is probably a dominence by the men who insist upon sex, but it seems highly improbable that this the situation with everyone of the millions of women. The problem of hunger is perpetuated by the continual breeding of human beings where there is no sustenance. Can a mass inoculation be given to prevent childbearing?(and I'm not talking about forced abortions)

Answer 1

People are biologically driven to reproduce. Add to that naturally strong desire a lack of education about sex or resources to practice reliable birth control, patriarchal societies where women often have little choice in the matter and having sons is considered highly important for the family, and religious or cultural prohibitions on contraception, and you've got a huge, complicated overpopulation problem.

In agricultural settings more children can mean more free labor (although that might not always work out since feeding them can be a problem).

In many countries, having a male heir is necessary to keep wealth in the family or obtain wealth through marriage. Couples might keep trying for sons if they've only had daughters. In cultures with bride prices, having a lot of daughters can bring wealth when the groom brings his money, cattle, or whatever to "purchase" their daughter.

In places where condoms or other types of birth control are difficult to obtain, the only 100% effective means of birth control is abstinence, something which few married couples (or even unmarried) will be willing to sacrifice, especially if they believe, as the Roman Catholic church teaches, that oral sex or other forms of sexual activity unlikely to result in pregnancy are evil.

Answer 2

Who are we to decide what constitues a family or situation worth bringing a child into? If these people were barred from having children, within 70 years (at the most!) or so their whole population would die out, and before then their livelihoods such as farming and craftmanship would become extinct because the people who had grown too old or frail to continue it would not have younger family to teach their skills to. The situation would be made even worse as most of these people live from the land and provide for themselves, if they couldnt do this they would starve to death!!!

Also, just think how many children are brought into the western world in situations which may not be the same as in the third world, but are just as bad if not worse?! How many babies are born in the west addicted to drugs each day? How many children have parents with drug or alcohol addictions? How many children live with constant domestic violence between their parents? How many children live in constant fear of physical, verbal and sexual abuse from members of their own families? How many children have to go to school, cook, clean and look after other siblings because their parents are too mashed to do anything themselves? How many children are moved from home to home because their parents cannnot hold down a job or keep getting kicked out their houses? This is only a fraction of the problems that some of the western children face today, yet we do not say 'stop everyone in the west who is not Mary Poppins and sitting on a large fortune having children'!

I'm sorry to say that your assumption that children in the third world countries are better off dead would provoke great anger in these people and the hard work and lifetime efforts that they have made to keep themselves alive! Many of their problems are caused by our western governments and their demands for huge debt repayments meaning that these countries are being prevented from helping themselves and creating a better life for their children. Just because they do not have all the ridiculous amounts of toys and trash that western children now receive as 'the norm' does not mean that they should never have been born. I'm sure when you decide to have children you would be utterly disgusted if someone from another country came and sterilised you because you were not up to their standards of being able to provide for your children!

I'm afraid your views are teeming with ethnocentrism-you are projecting your own cultural views on what environment is worth bringing up a child in with the outrageous claim that outwith this 'ideal world' people should be sterilised against their will. Whilst I do not wish that any person be born into extreme poverty, I admire the people who DO bring children into that situation to try and better the lives of their people and build a brighter future for their nation. These people live in hope.

You have so much to learn about the world, but I hope you get many answers which begin to teach you.
All the best

Answer 3

You hit the nail squire on the head overpopulation is the problem and there is no willingness to address it, a taboo subject for discussion even.
50 years or so ago we had a change to stop this impending human sprawl and provide them with some skills and education, but I am afraid that we missed the boat and now we have to rely on disease and famine to keep this breeding frenzy in check.
Throwing our tax money at it will do no good.
If we cannot get the population down to around 2-3 billion in the next few years, this planet is doomed and will be uninhabitable in 50 years.

Answer 4

This philosophy sounds unfeeling but it does make sense: children care for their parents and other children. They provide labor. The more children you have, the more labor, and therefore support for the family, they provide (and more of a chance of one of them surviving). It makes sense in the long term for one family, but when everyone has lots of children, it just puts more of a strain on the country's resources....and they have more kids. Et cetera.
A mass inoculation sounds like a possible solution, but a lot of major religions would oppose it. Encouraging people to have less children makes sense on a national level but perhaps not a family one.

Answer 5

So are you suggesting that we sterilize everyone who can't afford to feed their children? Because we have that problem here, too.

People in third world countries have so many children because the families need the extra help (labor) and because of the high mortality rate. Western medicine has lowered infant mortality, but they still expect that a high percentage of the children will not survive.

Answer 6

I kid you not, this is what a economics professors said about third world countries.

"We should not help them by suppling food and services because there are too many people for the enviroment to support. Nature needs to be left alone to find a natural state of equilibrium."

So, if there having to many kids, we should let them be and the populations will die down as resources run out.
by helping we are only perpetuating the problem, sad but true.

Answer 7

They have a slogan back in the 60's: "make love not war".

On the superficial level, I'd say: people busy with accumulating wealth spend most of their time on the business of violence, while people with nothing to do spend their time making love.

You have a very serious question in hand, really, and a baggage to unload. Sociologists of the Philippine dictator in the 70's allowed the flooding of pornography in almost all communication medium so that the people would ignore the signs of poverty coming as the same dictator was robbing the country of its wealth. Thirty years after, the nation woke up to the fact that even their unborn grand grandchildren are already indebted.

At about the same time, E.F. Schumacher, and most especially G. Myrdal, proposed a rocking thesis: that the roots of the problem of poverty in Asia are not in its exploding population. Poor population quality (including corruption) are the major causes rather. Huge population, on the other hand, given that it is of good quality, is true wealth. For within every individual is a tremendous potential of life, energy, creativity and therefore wealth. Schumacher raised the concept of entrepreneurship to the pedestal, saying "small is beautiful". For whereas the multinational hordes wealth into the coffers of a handful leaders, the entrepreneur is obliged to share wealth to those who contribute to his well-being. In his situation of a closely-knitted collaboration, he must.

You must have observed by now that I have reoriented you to the thought that overpopulation occurs after poverty and not the other way around. At the critical point when poverty and population meet for a resolution, we normally get confused because we are caught up with a problem of which cause we have not noticed.

You propose for the stagnation of population growth. Okey, fine, it is convenient enough. But aren't the population you are conserving the same as the ones who waste, by exponential terms, your already depleting resources? Isn't USA indebted to China now in terms of billions of dollars?

If we come to terms with the thoughts of Myrdal and Schumacher, they do not propose the proliferation of birth control. They are actually pleading us to become socially responsible; and, diversify. Consider how the small patch of Brazilian forest is healing the world and consider too the wealth behind it that the multinationals trapped for the satisfaction of their greed.

Let us also come to terms with your logic. Yes, making love produce babies- and so does f**k**g. F**k**g is a sexual act motivated by repressed violence; and which explains why you gave a hint of defense against male dominance. You don't want to be f**k*d; you want to be loved. And, loved, you won't care about male dominance for you are willing to give. You are also willing to give birth. No matter what economic situation it would be then when the baby is born, you wouldn't care as well because you are in the realm of love.

Consider here a subtle twist. But while you were pregnant, you suddenly thought of your future which will now be shared by the baby. The first thing that comes to your mind is food and money, and which now you must seek. You get a job, and you deprive another man of the opportunity to work for the welfare of his own woman and child. You have become a man and you are learning violence in a world of fierce competition. You also evoked the birth of poverty. In the maze of fears that poverty proposes, you don't love anymore. Either that you just want to f**k and get over with your frustrations , or avoid sex altogether because you're tired. The deprivation you did to your husband causes him to be violent now. He loses inspiration, gets tired of working, and leaves it all up to you. Sometimes he'd beat you for the psychological violence you inflicted him. Meanwhile, in a small, dark corner, your child had missed his opportunity to learn how to be with and survive a stinking world. He was already deprived of the endearing lessons of humanity and learning from you and your husband the ways of hostility.

Where does this lead you and your family? Poverty.

What happened and why? Human degradation due to violence and hostility.

Was there an effort to create quality population? No, but yes initially. Yes when you were in the realm of love, and no when you were in the realm of fear.

What then becomes your basis for the promotion of mass innoculation? Isn't it fear? Isn't that an act of proliferating human degradation? Isn't that a reinvention of poverty?

I beg you, please rethink your premise. Believe in love for it is "life yearning for itself". Be socially responsible and begin at where you are. Teach your children "a code that they can live by". Do not fear. When you are a creation of quality, you'll have value. And, you will prosper.

Fear, deprive, degrade; and you will lose the value of your humanity. You will wallow in degradation and there'd be no one to help you up when you get down.

Answer 8

How about if you're living in poverty, you can't afford birth control? If it's even available. Plus, if you can't afford to eat, you can't afford recreation, except sex. It's free.

I won't even touch how culture shapes people's views on family and childbearing.

Answer 9

In many instances, women aren't educated on birth control, they can't afford it, it is not easily accessible, or some combination of the three.

Answer 10

Many Christian missionaries have taught these people to be anti-birth control. They were quite capable of sustaining their populations before being exposed to the West.