Double think and double talk.

ABSTRACT

PIP: Dr. Maurice King has predicted that Third-World societies will collapse as a result of their growing demographic entrapment. Although Dr. King acknowledges that a lack of economic connections is strongly related to entrapment, he fails to call for economic solutions or interventions aimed at increasing the carrying capacity of an ecosystem (which would also lead to economic growth and, thus, provide a prerequisite for slowing population growth). Instead, Dr. King proposes withholding support from child survival programs. Since the current mortality rate for children under 5 years old in least developed countries (150-300/1000 live births) is held in check by improved economic and social conditions as well as by child survival interventions, these public health measures only reduce mortality among 15-30% of all children. Therefore, preventing 50% of the deaths which now occur would only increase the population by 10%. Instead of asking children to bear the brunt of the problem, it would be more humane and reasonable to provide better family planning (FP) programs. Also, curtailing existing programs for child survival would only lead to an insignificant reduction in financial allotments as compared to those devoted to such activities as military support. In addition, Dr. King's argument that communities should make their own decisions about whether or not to accept proposed programs of international aid has 4 fallacies. 1) It is unlikely that communities would choose to sacrifice their children for the promise of a better tomorrow. 2) Decision-making implies having viable options. Offering a community a "decision" without offering the social, economic, and technological choices available in developed countries would be unjust. 3) If FP were the only possible alternative to entrapment, societies would have to limit couples to one child or no children. 4) Even if communities opted to withhold public health services which were safe and effective, it would be wrong for the world community to endorse such unethical behavior. Dr. King also misses the point that child survival strategies are also FP strategies (extended breast feeding, for example) and that the best interests of community development are served by better FP and by better health care for children, which are complementary rather than competitive. Dr. King is also incorrect when he maintains that children are receiving the highest priority. Defending the previously-neglected plight of children does not preclude searching for the best balance of developmental strategies for a particular country. Promoting development at the expense of children, however, is a radical position which upsets this balance.