To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Human population planning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of countries by fertility rate (2020), according to the Population Reference Bureau

Human population planning is the practice of managing the growth rate of a human population. The practice, traditionally referred to as population control, had historically been implemented mainly with the goal of increasing population growth, though from the 1950s to the 1980s, concerns about overpopulation and its effects on poverty, the environment and political stability led to efforts to reduce population growth rates in many countries. More recently, however, several countries such as China, Japan,[1][2] South Korea,[3] Russia,[4] Iran, Italy,[4] Spain, Finland,[5] Hungary[6] and Estonia[7][8] have begun efforts to boost birth rates once again, generally as a response to looming demographic crises.

While population planning can involve measures that improve people's lives by giving them greater control of their reproduction, a few programs, such as the Chinese government's "one-child policy and two-child policy", have employed coercive measures.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    3 094 419
    163 600
    390 538
    6 101 986
    6 674
  • DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population
  • Human Population Size
  • Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?
  • 7 Billion: How Did We Get So Big So Fast? | SKUNK BEAR
  • Growth in human population and its consequences | Chapter # 14 | Biology Class 10th | Lec# 26

Transcription

We live in a world of relentless change. Huge migrations of people to new mega cities filling soaring skyscrapers and vast slums. Ravenous appetites for fuel and food, unpredictable climate change and all this in a world where the population is still growing. Should we be worried? Should we be scared? How to make sense of it all? 7 billion people now live on this planet of ours… isn't it beautiful? But when some people think about the world and its future, they panic! Others prefer not to think about it all. But tonight I’m going to show you how things really are. My name is Hans Rosling, I’m a statistician that…. NO, NO, NO, NO… don’t switch off! Because with the latest data from all countries I’m going to show you the world in a new way. I’m going to tell you how world population is changing and what today’s data tell us about how the future of the world will be. We undeniably face huge challenges but the good news is that the future may not be quite as gloomy and that mankind is already doing better than many of you think! Don't Panic! The Truth About Population with professor Hans Rosling Babies... each one a blessing. But many people think population growth is out of control. Some even talk of a population bomb! Are they right? So where are we with population today? And how did we get here? I am going to tell you a history about everyone who ever lived... Well, at least during the last 1000 years Here we go. I give you 2 axes. This is time in years and this one here is world population in billions. In the year 10,000 BC, when the first people where becoming farmers, then the archeologists estimate that the world population was only 10 million. Imagine: 10 million! That’s is like Sweden today! A world of only Swedes! But then, as the millennia passed by, more farmers, food and people…. and great empires could emerge. Egypt, China, India… and finally Europe! And population continued to grow, but very slowly. And I stop here, at the year 1800. Because it was in 1800 that the world population became 1 billion. Imagine… All that time, the population growth was just a tiny fraction of a percent, through thousand of years. But on 1800, with the industrial revolution, everything changed and population started to grow faster. In little more than 100 years, it reached 2 billions. And then, when I was in school, it was 3 billion. And many people said: ‘The planet can not support more people’. Even experts said that. But what happened was this... We became 4 billion… 5 billion… 6 billion… 7 billion! Imagine… More than half of the world population have been added during my lifetime. And the number is still rising. Most of the population growth, in recent years, has been in Asian countries. Like here, in Bangladesh… where the population has tripled during my lifetime. From 50 million to more than 150 million. It is now one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Some 15 million already live in the very crowed capital, Dhaka. People here, whether in the city or the countryside, are intensely concerned about the size of families. But a new Bangladesh is emerging… Like the Khan family. Mom Taslima, daugthers Tanjina and little Sadia. and dad Hannan. Women take ages to get ready, men don't take as long. If you're going to wipe it off with your hands, why put it on? Both Taslima and Hannan come from large families themselves. But they’ve decided to have just 2 children. In Bangladesh there's slogan you hear everywhere "No more than two kids - one is even better!" It's lucky I only have two kids If I had more I couldn't afford it With two kids, I can buy what they want My pockets are empty now! Taslima and Hannan are part of a cultural shift away from big families. And for Taslima, it has also become a job. She works for the government Family Planning Service which employs women like her in every village. She goes door-to-door, to try to help others to have smaller families too. When was your last period? It was on the 22nd So you're not using any method of contraception? Won't it be a problem if you conceive? I don't get pregnant easily But you already have two children I don't have time to go to the clinic Taslima offers advice, moral support and most importantly, a range of contraceptives. You've got three daughters - do you really want to have any more kids? It's up to the father You're the one giving birth, why is it up to him? You have to go through the pain, he doesn't Who has to go through the pain? I go through the pain, but if he wants a boy what can I do? Here's the pill, take them when you start your period It can be hard to get through to them when they're less educated But gradually we're getting the message across So how successful has Taslima and Bangladesh been in reducing fertility rate? That is the number of babies born per woman. In Sweden we set up the Gapminder Foundation to make the world’s data available in a way that everyone can understand. So I can show you the situation in Bangladesh and what has happened. Here, a horizontal axis, babies per woman. All the way from 1 to 2…. 7 to 8. and here a vertical axis, that is lifespan, life expectancy, how many years a newborn can expect to live. From 30 all the way up to 90. Now… we start in 1972 a very important year for Bangladesh, the first full year of independence. That year, Bangladesh was over there and they had on average 7 babies per woman and lifespan was less than 50 years. So what has happened after independence? Has life become longer in Bangladesh? Have children become fewer? Here is the data. I start Bangladesh Indeed, life is getting longer and babies, fewer… 6… 5… and life even longer… 4…3… and they land now almost in 2. It’s 2.2. And the lifespan is 70. It’s absolutely amazing! In 40 years, Bangladesh has gone from 7… 6… 5… 4… 3… 2… It’s a miracle that has happened in Bangladesh! But is it only in Bangladesh? Well, I will show you the whole world. I will go back 50 years in time, to 1963. Here are all the countries. These green ones are America, north and south. The yellow are Europe, east and west. Blue is Africa, north and south of the Sahaara. And red is Asia, and we include Australia and New Zealand. The size of the bubble shows the size of the population. Look: The big ones over there are China and India. And Bangladesh is just behind. In 1963 the average number of babies born per woman in the world was 5. But it was a divided world… can you see that? These countries over here, the developed countries, had small families and long lives. And then there were the developing countries, and they had large families and short lives. Very few countries were in between. But now we will see what has happened. I start the world! Here we go… You can see China, the big bubble, is getting better health and then they start family planning, they move along to smaller families. The big green, look at Mexico, it is coming there! This is Brazil, also the green in Latin America. And here India is following. The big red bubbles are Asian countries going this way. Many Africans are still with ‘many babies born per woman’. And then Bangladesh over there overtakes India on its way to the small family. And now almost all countries go up to this part, even Africa now starts to move up. Oooh! That was the earthquake in Haiti! And now everyone ends up there. What a change we have! Today, the average in the world is 2.5 It used to be 5 fifty years ago. The world has changed: the average number of babies born per woman has gone from 5 to 2.5 And it is still decreasing…. What a big change! People would think that Bangladesh and countries like that are some sort of epicenter of a population bomb. They couldn’t be more wrong. To me, health workers like Mrs. Taslima and their colleagues, who have taken their countries from this side… all over… in a few decades to much better health and small families, they are the heroes of our time! It is an amazing change that has happened. We no longer live in a divided world. But how much do people know about this amazing change? At Gapminder we not only show data, we also measure how much people know or don't know about the world. So we did the first survey in Sweden. The results were depressing! We did our second survey in Britain. We had high hopes, because the British had been all over the place. We thought we would get good results here. The first question we asked was: how many babies do women have on average in Bangladesh? And we gave four alternatives: 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 or 5.5 This is the result of the British survey. But you know the right answer: it’s 2.5 Only 12 percent of the British got it right. So we thought that perhaps it was those with low education who dragged down the result. So we segmented those who had been to the fine British universities and had an university degree. And here they are. This is the result. Even anything, they did worse! So now you may conclude that the British lack knowledge about the world. No, no! What if I would have asked this chimp and his friends? I would have written the different answers on bananas and let them pick one banana each. This result I would get. Of course chimps know nothing about Bangladesh. But by pure randomness, they would pick twice as many correct answers as the British. More than half of the British people think it’s 4.5 or more. The problem here is not lack of knowledge, it is preconceived ideas. The British can not even imagine, cannot even guess that women in Banglash have 2.5 babies in average. And it is really 2.2 already. This is what the British don’t know: that Taslima and her family are the norm in Bangladesh, the most common family size. And it’s not only there, it’s all over the world. In Brazil, 2 child families. Vietnam, 2 child families. And even in India, the most common family size is 2 children today. And also if you go to the African continent, you go the big cities like Addis Ababa. There are less than 2 children per woman in Addis Ababa. There can be Muslin, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian… There is not one religion, not one culture, not one continent where 2 child families can not happen. This change from big families down to 2 child families is one of the most important things that have happened in the world during my lifetime. It is unprecedented in human history! Here we are, back in Bangladesh. Let’s find the reasons behind this historic and continuing shift from large to small families. Almost all girls in Muslim Bangladesh, like 15-year-old Tanjina, go to school today. The government now even pays families money to keep their daughters on at secondary level. At Tanjina’s school boys are now outnumbered by girls. What type of family is this? A big family! Will they be short of food? You could hardly miss the point of this lesson. What type of family is this? Will they face any difficulties? No! Education is effective and there are also new opportunities for Bangladeshi women. Despite continuing inequalities, there are more jobs and Tanjina is aiming high. I love going to school In my mother's day, they used to get married young They had no chance to study But now we can have big dreams of becoming a doctor or an engineer More and more young women here are seeing how different things could be for them. I can't imagine how you got married at 17 I couldn't dream of getting married in two years' time It's impossible We didn't understand back then But people know better now So what age are you thinking of getting married? Twenty five I'll finish my education and get a job I'll become a doctor and get married after that You're very smart! It is wonderful to see Taslima so full of hope for a bright future for her two daughters. But one essential transformation underpins the change in Bangladesh. It’s a dramatic improvement in child survival. It’s Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting and reflection. At this auspicious time, Hanan is helping his parents to tend the family graveyard. Press the soil down with your hands Three of Hannan’s siblings died when they were very young. They are buried here. They died of measles We cried so much, it was so sad If doctors had been there they could have been treated One might have survived How can I forget? I will remember them as long as I live Back when Hannan’s parents where a young couple, 1 in 5 children in Bangladesh died before they reached 5 years of age. All families lived with a constant fear of losing one or more children. You'd carry on having one child after another Then if one died, you wouldn't have just one left That's how it was We didn't think we were having too many children, or what their future would be In the last few decades Bangladesh has made great progress in basic health, particularly in child survival. Vaccines, treatments of infections and better nutrition and hygiene have all saved the lives of millions of children. And as parents have come to see that all their children are now likely to survive, the biggest obstacle to family planning has at last gone. Even in the slums of Dhaka, women now have on average just 2 children. Child survival drives everything. Let’s go back into history. Why did the world population grow so slowly before 1800? Throughout history, all historical records show us that, on average 2 parents got more or less 6 children. But that looks as a very fast population growth. So why didn’t it grow? Because 1… 2… 3… 4 of the children died before growing up to become parents themselves. People in the past never lived in ecological balance with nature, they died in ecological balance with nature. It was utterly tragic! But with the industrial revolution, this changed. Better wages, more food, tapped water, better sanitation, soap, medical advances.... So from all these advances, why did the population grow? Was it because they got more children? No! In 1963 when I was at school, actually the number of children per woman had decreased a little in the world, to 5. And the reason for the fast population growth was the improved children survival. 4 survived at that time. But still 1 out of 5 died, that was still terrible. It’s only in the recent decades that most countries have taken big leaps forward in child survival and in family planning. So that we are now approaching the new balance. And it’s a nice balance: 2 parents on average get 2 children that survive. We have families in a very happy balance. This is the most normal family situation in the world today. And what does it mean for the future here? I will show you the best projection into the future, from the finest demographers we have, at the Population Division of the United Nations. And it looks like this. It is going to continue first, up to 8… then it goes up to 9… and then it goes here… But see: it’s slowing down! By the end of the century it is becoming more flat there. And if I do a close-up on this, you can see that we are expecting a ’slowing down’ and the end of fast population growth. But of course this is a projection that has a certain degree of uncertainty. But we are sure that we are at the end of fast population growth within this century. It is all due to a remarkable effect of the falling fertility rate. Look here. If we go back into this I will show this by showing you the number of children in the world. The number of children from 0 to 15 years of age. Here they come. Look: The number of children there increased slowly… and then it also increased rapidly… So by the turn of the century here there were 2 billion children in the world. To me that was an important year because that was when Doris was born. That’s my first grandchild. She was born at a very special time for children in the world. Because the specialist demographers estimate that from this year the number of children in the world will continue like this. It will not increase any longer. By the end of the century we will still have 2 billion children in the world. When Doris was born was when the world entered into the age of peak child. The number of children are not increasing. Now, this will confuse you. Because… how can the total population grow like this, if the children don’t increase? Where will all these adults come from? And to explain that I have to leave this fancy digital stuff and show you real powerful educational material we have developed. I will show you the world population, ladies and gentleman... in the form of foam blocks. One block is 1 billion. And that means that we have 2 billion children in the world. Then we have 2 billion between 15 and 30 years of age. These are rounded numbers. We have 1 billion of 30 to 45 years of age, we have 1 billion of 45 to 60 years of age and then we have my block: 60 years and older. We are here on top. This is the world population today. You can see that there are 3 billions missing here. Only a few of them are missing because they have died. Most of them are missing because they were never born. Because before 1980 there were much fewer children born in the world because there were fewer women giving birth to children. So this is what we have today. Now what will happen in the future? Do you know what happens to old people like me? They die! Yes! There was someone here who works in hospitals. So… they die! The rest grows 15 years older and have 2 billion children. These ones are now old, time to die. And then these ones grow 15 years older and they have 2 billion children. This one die and the rest grow 15 years older and have 2 billion children. Ah! Without increasing the number of children, without increasing the length of life, we have 3 billion people more by this big and inevitable fill up of adults. which happen just when the large young generations grow up. Now there is one more detail, which is good news for the older ones here, like me. It is estimated that the old people will live a little longer. So we have to add 1 billion more for the old here on the top. And I’m desperately hoping that I will be part of that group. Because then I can live long and read annual statistics as they come, reporting every year… But when I talk to many fine environmental activists, who have a good concern about the environment they very often tell me ‘we have to stop population growth at 8 billion’. When I then talk to them… first, they don’t know that we have reached peak child. and then they are completely unaware that most of the remaining population growth is an inevitable fill up of adults. So we will end up with more or less this amount of people. So we know how many billions there will be. But what about where they live? Now and in the future. There you have the world and here are the 7 billion. Out of the 7 billion, 1 live in the America, north and south together. 1 in Europe, 1 in Africa, and 4 in Asia. This is nowadays. But how to remember this? I have a simple way of remembering this: I put up the numbers like this and then I say this is the pin code of the world: 1114. Now, what will happen up to mid-century? That we know fairly well. Europe… no increase. In fact, the European population is decreasing. In America, a little more people. Mainly retired people in Latin America, So it makes no difference, it's almost the same. In Asia we will have 1 billion more. and then the population growth in Asia is over. In Africa, in the next 40 years, the population will double to 2 billion. Now… to the end of the century Well… we know quite well: no more people in Europe, no more in America, no more in Asia… But Africa is set, as we have data today, for another doubling. So there will be 4 billions in Africa. At 2100, and probably the final pin code will be 1145. So in 2100 there will be quite a different world. The people who live in what I call the old west, in west Europe and North America, will by then be less than 10 percent of the world population. 80 percent of the world population will be living in Asia and Africa. But will there be resources enough to sustain them? Well, this will be a huge challenge and nothing will come automatically. But my take is that it is possible for all these billions to live well together. Certainly it's easy to see the potential for a prosperous and peaceful Asia, with 5 billion people. Japan, South Korea and others are already rich. Following them on the road to wealth, are larger and larger parts of China, India, Indonesia and many other Asian countries. Even in poorer Asian countries, more and more are getting a decent life. But what about a future Africa, of as much as 4 billion? Won’t most of them be living in terrible poverty? I have seen extreme poverty in Africa. 30 years ago I spent the 2 most intense years of my life working as medical doctor in one of the poorest countries, Mozambique, on the east coast of Africa. Mozambique had just become independent after a long war against the colonial power Portugal. My job was to be 1 of 2 doctors, we were both foreigners, for 300,000 people. And this was the hospital. My wife was also there working as a midwife. This is the entire staff of the hospital. Those with white coats had the chance during the colonial period to get a professional training of at least one year. The others… many of them couldn’t even read or write. But they all worked with such dedication and motivation! But the patients came with the worse diseases of extreme poverty and our resources were often not enough, and especially my skills as a young doctor, did not meet the need of the patients. Mozambique is still today a very poor country. But things have improved immensely since I was there, 30 years ago. For a start, there is now a brand new hospital in the town where I worked 30 years ago. The new, much bigger hospital has 15 doctors and 11 of them are Mozambicans. All the staff are now well trained. The director of the hospital is Dr. Cashimo, the obstetrician. Everything indicates that… it's going to be… twins! The transformation here is amazing to me! We have accident and emergency… and paediatric and orthopaedic surgery We have big laboratories and a pharmacy that works 24 hours They routinely save women in child birth with cesareans, something that was impossible when I was there. Nowadays we can do it here, with a professional team… in an operating room equipped as well as anywhere else in the world Everything has improved so much. Those born in Mozambique today should have a much brighter future! Not just because of better health, but a booming economy too with busy ports and markets and new industries with lots of new jobs. I know you might be thinking that this good news is just about cities and towns. And it’s true! The worse challenge is in the rural areas, where most people live. But things are changing here too. Deep in rural northern Mozambique lies the district of Mogovolas. This is home for Olivia, Andre and their young family. Like so many other poor people in the world, Olivia and Andre are farmers. reliant on what they grow for what they eat. It’s 4 a.m. and the day’s tasks beckon. Andre heads straight to the fields. Olivia first goes to fetch water. Both have to walk miles to get anywhere. It takes me two hours to get there When it's busy it might take two hours When I get back I'm tired and hungry With no other means of transport, everything has to be carried. Olivia and Andre have 8 children. Fertility rates are still high in much of rural Africa. And it’s the poorest families who have the most mouths to feed. Anything this family can spare, they will sell. I'm really struggling I plant all kinds of crops but even with all the crops I grow… I still don't make enough money to provide for my children Yet economic growth is slowly trickling into the countryside. I saved up for three years to get this roof for my house Now Andre has set his sights on one thing he believes will change everything. I desperately need a bicycle. I can't get anywhere without one Bicycles can make a huge different to the lives of the rural poor. They save hours everyday and get so much more done. With a bicycle they can carry much heavier loads to the market. and earn more money. They can travel to find work and if they get sick, they can reach a health clinic in time. If I get a bicycle I'll be so happy Because a house without bicycle is not a home Andre and Olivia have been putting money away for 2 years. They haven’t quite enough yet. Everything now depends on the sesame seeds, which they are just harvesting. If they get can get a good price, they might just make it. Andre and Olivia live in one of the poorest countries. And they live in the rural area, which is the poorest part of that country. So how many people are there in the world living like them? And how many are there that are poor? I’m going to show you this yardstick. Very simple. Poor… and … rich. Here I have all the 7 billions again. They are in a very simplified way, lined up there from the poorest to the richest. Now, how much does the richest billion earn here, in dollars per day? Let's look here. Oh… oohhh… It’s coming up, it’s coming up…. Ooh, yoi-yoi, yoi-yoi... I can’t even reach. $100 a day. Then let's look at the middle billion. How much do they earn? It will come just yet…. Just $10. And then I go over here to the poorest billion. How much to they get? Well… Just $1. This is the difference of the world today. The economists draw a line, which they call the line for extreme poverty. A little above $1. That’s when you hardly can have enough food to feed the family, you can not be sure that you have food all days. 1 billion is clearly below that still. and second billion is sort of divided by that line. And then the others are above it. The poorest people can hardly afford to buy shoes. and when they get shoes… the next thing they will save for is bicycle. This is where Andre and Olivia are. And after bicycle, you will go for the motorbike. And then after the motorbike, it’s the car. And I remember when my family got the first car, it was a small grey Volkswagen. The first thing we did was to go to Norway on holiday, because Norway is so much more beautiful than Sweden. It was a fantastic trip! And now I’m in this group. I can go like the richest billion, we can go on holiday by airplanes. Of course there are people who are much richer than the airplane people. Some are so rich that they are even contemplating that they should go as tourists out into space. And the difference in income from the airplane people to the very richest over there is almost as big as it is from the airplane people here all the way down to the poorest in that side. Now, the most important to remember from this yardstick is this To show you this I need my stepladder. Sometimes you need some old well functioning technology also. Here. I can only reach up… Here they are, now I am at the top. The problem for us living on $100 a day is that when we look down on those who have $10 or $1 they look equally poor. We can’t see the difference. It looks as if everyone is living on the same amount of money. And they say "oh, they are all poor". No, I can assure you, because I’ve met and talked with people who live down here and I can assure you that the people down here they know very well how much better life would be if they would move from $1 to $10 10 times as much income. This is a huge difference. To understand this, this is what Olivia and Andre are trying to do now. Each little step they take along this line here from the shoes towards the bicycle small as it may seem from far distance, make a huge difference in their life. And if Andre and Olivia would get that bicycle it would speed them along to better life and better wealth up in this end. Today, Andre and Olivia are preparing to sell the sesame crop they’ve been growing for many months. The price used to be 25 Meticais This year it's better We hope to sell it for 40-45 Meticais But Andre and Olivia will have to be careful if they are to get paid the proper price. We've found out that some buyers have been doctoring the scales So if we get it weighed ourselves and it's ten kilos… … then take it to the buyers, they might tell us it's seven or eight Andre is going to do the selling. And for the last time, he hopes, he has to get help to transport the crop to market. Andre now needs to keep his wits about him. Hey, hey my friend. Do the calculations properly! The deal is done. And Andre is happy with the price he’s got. Now I'm going to spend my money! It’s the moment the family have worked so hard for. Andre’s journey to market took all morning to walk. Now, in less than an hour, he can ride home. You bought a bicycle! Yes darling, I bought a bicycle! The bicycle is put to use at once. The children fetch water with it. Andre carries more crops to the market and, just as importantly, Olivia and Andre can now easily reach their lessons for adults so they can learn better maths and how to read and write. Now I want to save up to buy a motorbike to carry my wife and children That's what I want next It’s so great to see Olivia and Andre pedalling their way out of extreme poverty. And they use the bicycle to go to literacy classes. Education is so important for the progress of people and nations. But how many know what has really happened with education in the world? Time for the great British ignorance survey again Here we go. We asked what percent of adults in the world today are literate, can read and write? Can I ask the audience? How many guess 20 percent? Hands up. 40 percent? 60 percent? And 80 percent? Ah, ah, ah. This is the result of the British sample. By now you can use the result of the British survey to find out what the right answer is, isn’t it? Of course, 80 percent is the right answer. At least you were clearly better than the British average. Yes, 80 percent the population in the world can read and write today. Literacy is 80 percent… actually, the last figure is a little higher. So if I would have compared that with the chimps again, you know... once more you only get random results from the chimps. But you get 3 times as many correct answers than you get from the British. And now the university people Perhaps they know this... oh, even worse. What on earth are they teaching at British universities? The common view about the world is outdated with several decades. The media has missed to communicate it. But perhaps this is because the world is changing so fast. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to give you my all time favourite graph, I’m going to show you the history of 200 countries during 200 years in less than 1 minute. I have an axis for income. I have an axis for lifespan. I start in 1800 and there are all the countries. And back in 1800 everyone was down in the poor and sick corner, can you see? Low lifespan, little money. And here comes the effect of the Industrial Revolution. Of course, the countries in West Europe are coming to better wealth, but are not getting much healthier in the beginning And those on the colonial domination doesn’t benefit anything in there, they remain there in the second poor corner. And now health is slowly improving here, it’s getting up here and we are coming into the new century. And the terrible First World War, and then the economic recession after that. And then the Second World War. Ooh. And now independence. And with independence health is improving faster than it ever did in other countries here. And now starts the fast economic catch-up of China and other Latin American countries. They come on here you know. And India is following there and the African countries are also following. It’s an amazing change that has happened in the world. You know, in the front here we have now US and UK, but they are not moving so fast any longer. The fast movers are here in the middle. China is moving very fast to catch up. And Bangladesh... Look, Bangladesh is already here, now quite healthy and now starting with fast economic growth. And Mozambique… Yes, Mozambique is back there, but they are now moving fast in the right direction. But all this I show you are country averages. What about people? Have people also got a better life? I am now going to show you something which makes me very excited as a statistician. I'm going to show you income distribution. The difference between people. And to do that I take the bubbles back 50 years and then we are going to look only at money. And to do that we have to expand and adjust the axis, because the richest is so rich and the poorest is so poor, so this will be a bigger difference than between the countries. And now we let the country fall down here. This is the United States, and spread to show the range within the country. And I take down all the countries in the Americas. And now you can see from the richest person to the poorest person. And the height here shows you how many there are on each income level. And now let’s take down Europe. And on top of that I’m going to put Africa. And finally, the region with most people, on top of everything, Asia. Now, in 1963 the world was constituted by two humps: first, the richest hump, it’s like a camel, isn’t it? The first hump here with the richest is mainly Europe and the Americas. And the poorest hump over here is mainly Asia and Africa. And the poverty line was there. Can you see how many people there were in extreme poverty 50 years ago? And most of them were in Asia. And people were saying Asia will never get out of poverty, exactly as some people are still saying about Africa today. Now, what has happened? I start the world. And you can see that many people are born into poverty here, but Asia goes towards higher income and 1 billion goes out of extreme poverty this way and the whole shape of the world change, and that camel is dead. It’s reborn as a dromedary. And what you can see here, you know, is the variation from the richest, that is most people in the middle, and there’s a much smaller proportion of the world now in extreme poverty but be careful, it’s still a lot of people: more than 1 billion people in extreme poverty. Now the question is: can this ‘move out of extreme poverty’ now continue for those in Africa and even for the new billions in Africa? I think it’s possible, even probable, that most countries in Africa will rise out of poverty too. It will need wise action and huge investment, but it can happen. The many countries of Africa are not all advancing at the same pace. A few are moving very fast, others are stuck in conflict. But most, like Mozambique, are now making steady progress. And what about feeding all the new African people in the future? Yes, there are shortages today, but there is also much potential here. Agricultural yields in Africa are just a fraction of what they could be with better technology. And Africa’s rivers are barely tapped for irrigation. One day Africa could hum with combine harvesters and tractors and grow food for many more billions. And please, don’t imagine it’s just me who thinks Africa can make it. The United Nations is about to set itself a new official goal: eliminating extreme poverty within 20 years. Everyone understands it’s a huge challenge, but I seriously believe it’s possible. Imagine if that would happen. Now, what we have seen so far is that the rich end moves... and the middle... it moves. But this poorest end is stuck. It’s here in extreme poverty we find almost all the illiteracy. Here we find high child mortality and still many babies born per woman. It’s like extreme poverty reproduces itself if you don’t end it swiftly. But Andre and Olivia, and people like that, work so hard to get away from it, and if they only can get the right help from their government and from the world at large with things like school, health, vaccines, roads, electricity, contraceptives, then they will manage, but they will mainly manage by their own hard work. Here we go… go on... follow Andre and Olivia across the line, you know. It is possible within some decades… Yes! But getting out of poverty is just the beginning. People want to continue along this line to a good life. But what does a good life mean? For most people in the world the good life they are striving for will mean more machines and much more use of energy. So there’s a problem. Because all this adds to one of the great threats for the future: severe climate change. 80 percent of the energy the world uses is still fossil fuels, and the science shows that the climate may change dramatically in the future because of the carbon dioxide emission from continuing to burn all these fossil fuels. I’m not the best person to tell you how bad climate change will be nor am I a specialist on how to prevent it. What I can do is to show you data to make you understand who is the one that emits the carbon dioxide. I will show this. You remember the yardstick from the poorest billion to the richest billion from the one who hardly can afford shoes to the one who flies with airplanes Now this shows the total amount of fossil fuel used in the world during one year coal, oil and natural gas. And it represents more or less the total emission of carbon dioxide. Now how much of that is used by the richest billion? Half of it. Now the second richest billion. Half of what’s left. And you understand what the third use half of what’s left. And the others use hardly anything. This are rounded numbers, but it clearly shows that almost all the fossil fuel is used here by the 1, 2, 3 richest billions more than 85 percent they use. Now the richest billion at least have stopped increasing, but we are yet to see whether they will decrease. And in the coming decades it’s the economic growth of these 2 that will increase the fossil fuel use and the carbon dioxide emission. Even if these ones over here come out of extreme poverty and get richer all the way to the motorbike that doesn’t contribute much to the emission of carbon dioxide. And regarding population growth, most of the additional billions in the next 40 years will be in this group here. But still, if you ask people in the richest end they seem to get everything wrong. They look down on the world from their very high emission and then they say: “Oh, those over there, you cannot live like us, you will destroy the planet”. You see, I find the argument from the people here catching up to be much more correct and logic. They say: "Huh! Who are you to tell us that we can’t live like you? You’d better change first if you want us to do it differently”. There are many essentials to having a good life that billions in the world do not yet have. Andre’s village and house, and so many like them, don’t even have electricity. Mozambique has huge coal reserves and if it and the other poorest countries build affordable new power-stations burning coal for electricity and industry I don’t think anyone who emits more carbon should interfere. Now, I’m going to ask you two questions that I often ask my Swedish students. The first one is: how many of you have not travelled by an airplane this year? Uh-huh. Quite a few can do without flying. So the next question is: How many of you have stayed away from washing machines and have hand washed all bedsheets, clothes and laundry during the last year? I thought so, no one. Everyone who can afford to use a washing machine, even the hard core in the environmental movement. And I still remember the day when my family got a washing machine. It was 1st November 1952. Grandma was invited to be the first to load the machine. She had hand washed her entire life for a family of 9. And when she loaded the machine she sat down on a footstool and she watched the entire programme during one hour. She was absolutely mesmerised. For my mother it also meant a lot of more free time to do other things. She could read books for me, I think that’s what made me a professor. No wonder we said thank you steel mill, thank you washing powder factory, thank you electrical power station. Now... When thinking about where all this leave us I have just one little humble advice to you, beside everything else: look at the data. Look at the facts about the world. And you will see where we are today and how we can move forwards with all these billions on our wonderful planet. The challenges of extreme poverty have been greatly reduced and it’s for the first time in history within our power to end it for good. The challenge of population growth is, in fact, already being solved, the number of children has stopped growing. And for the challenge for climate change, we can still avoid the worst. But that requires that the richest, as soon as possible, find a way to set their use of resources and energy at a level that, step by step, can be shared by 10 billions or 11 billions by the end of this century. I’ve never called myself an optimist, but I do say I’m a possibilist. And I also say the world is much better than many of you think. Thank you very much! Subtitles by the Amara.org community

Types

Three types of population planning policies pursued by governments can be identified:

  1. Increasing or decreasing the overall population growth rate.
  2. Increasing or decreasing the relative population growth of a subgroup of people, such as those of high or low intelligence or those with special abilities or disabilities. Policies that aim to boost relative growth rates are known as positive eugenics; those that aim to reduce relative growth rates are known as negative eugenics.
  3. Attempts to ensure that all population groups of a certain type (e.g. all social classes within a society) have the same average rate of population growth.

Methods

While a specific population planning practice may be legal/mandated in one country, it may be illegal or restricted in another, indicative of the controversy surrounding this topic.

Increasing population growth

Population policies that are intended to increase a population or subpopulation growth rates may use practices such as:

  • Higher taxation of married couples who have no, or too few, children
  • Politicians imploring the populace to have bigger families
  • Tax breaks and subsidies for families with children
  • Loosening of immigration restrictions, and/or mass recruitment of foreign workers by the government

History

Ancient times through Middle Ages

A number of ancient writers have reflected on the issue of population. At about 300 BC, the Indian political philosopher Chanakya (c. 350-283 BC) considered population a source of political, economic, and military strength. Though a given region can house too many or too few people, he considered the latter possibility to be the greater evil. Chanakya favored the remarriage of widows (which at the time was forbidden in India), opposed taxes encouraging emigration, and believed in restricting asceticism to the aged.[9]

In ancient Greece, Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) discussed the best population size for Greek city-states such as Sparta, and concluded that cities should be small enough for efficient administration and direct citizen participation in public affairs, but at the same time needed to be large enough to defend themselves against hostile neighbors. In order to maintain a desired population size, the philosophers advised that procreation, and if necessary, immigration, should be encouraged if the population size was too small. Emigration to colonies would be encouraged should the population become too large.[10] Aristotle concluded that a large increase in population would bring, "certain poverty on the citizenry and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil." To halt rapid population increase, Aristotle advocated the use of abortion and the exposure of newborns (that is, infanticide).[11]

Confucius (551-478 BC) and other Chinese writers cautioned that, "excessive growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife." Confucius also observed that, "mortality increases when food supply is insufficient; that premature marriage makes for high infantile mortality rates, that war checks population growth."[10]

Ancient Rome, especially in the time of Augustus (63 BC-AD 14), needed manpower to acquire and administer the vast Roman Empire. A series of laws were instituted to encourage early marriage and frequent childbirth. Lex Julia (18 BC) and the Lex Papia Poppaea (AD 9) are two well-known examples of such laws, which among others, provided tax breaks and preferential treatment when applying for public office for those who complied with the laws. Severe limitations were imposed on those who did not. For example, the surviving spouse of a childless couple could only inherit one-tenth of the deceased fortune, while the rest was taken by the state. These laws encountered resistance from the population which led to the disregard of their provisions and to their eventual abolition.[9]

Tertullian, an early Christian author (ca. AD 160-220), was one of the first to describe famine and war as factors that can prevent overpopulation.[9] He wrote: "The strongest witness is the vast population of the earth to which we are a burden and she scarcely can provide for our needs; as our demands grow greater, our complaints against Nature's inadequacy are heard by all. The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars, and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race."[12]

Ibn Khaldun, a North African polymath (1332–1406), considered population changes to be connected to economic development, linking high birth rates and low death rates to times of economic upswing, and low birth rates and high death rates to economic downswing. Khaldoun concluded that high population density rather than high absolute population numbers were desirable to achieve more efficient division of labour and cheap administration.[12]

During the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, population issues were rarely discussed in isolation. Attitudes were generally pro-natalist in line with the Biblical command, "Be ye fruitful and multiply."[12]

When Russian explorer Otto von Kotzebue visited the Marshall Islands in Micronesia in 1817, he noted that Marshallese families practiced infanticide after the birth of a third child as a form of population planning due to frequent famines.[13]

16th and 17th centuries

European cities grew more rapidly than before, and throughout the 16th century and early 17th century discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of population growth were frequent.[14] Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian Renaissance political philosopher, wrote, "When every province of the world so teems with inhabitants that they can neither subsist where they are nor remove themselves elsewhere... the world will purge itself in one or another of these three ways," listing floods, plague and famine.[15] Martin Luther concluded, "God makes children. He is also going to feed them."[15]

Jean Bodin, a French jurist and political philosopher (1530–1596), argued that larger populations meant more production and more exports, increasing the wealth of a country.[15] Giovanni Botero, an Italian priest and diplomat (1540–1617), emphasized that, "the greatness of a city rests on the multitude of its inhabitants and their power," but pointed out that a population cannot increase beyond its food supply. If this limit was approached, late marriage, emigration, and the war would serve to restore the balance.[15]

Richard Hakluyt, an English writer (1527–1616), observed that, "Through our longe peace and seldom sickness... we are grown more populous than ever heretofore;... many thousands of idle persons are within this realme, which, having no way to be sett on work, be either mutinous and seek alteration in the state, or at least very burdensome to the commonwealth." Hakluyt believed that this led to crime and full jails and in A Discourse on Western Planting (1584), Hakluyt advocated for the emigration of the surplus population.[14] With the onset of the Thirty Years' War (1618–48), characterized by widespread devastation and deaths brought on by hunger and disease in Europe, concerns about depopulation returned.[16]

Population planning movement

In the 20th century, population planning proponents have drawn from the insights of Thomas Malthus, a British clergyman and economist who published An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Malthus argued that, "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence only increases in an arithmetical ratio." He also outlined the idea of "positive checks" and "preventative checks." "Positive checks", such as diseases, wars, disasters, famines, and genocides are factors which Malthus believed could increase the death rate.[17] "Preventative checks" were factors which Malthus believed could affect the birth rate such as moral restraint, abstinence and birth control.[17] He predicted that "positive checks" on exponential population growth would ultimately save humanity from itself and he also believed that human misery was an "absolute necessary consequence".[18] Malthus went on to explain why he believed that this misery affected the poor in a disproportionate manner.

World population growth rate 1950–2050

There is a constant effort towards an increase in population which tends to subject the lower classes of society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition…. The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food, therefore which before supplied seven million must now be divided among seven million and a half or eight million. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them are reduced to severe distress.[19]

Finally, Malthus advocated for the education of the lower class about the use of "moral restraint" or voluntary abstinence, which he believed would slow the growth rate.[20]

Paul R. Ehrlich, a US biologist and environmentalist, published The Population Bomb in 1968, advocating stringent population planning policies.[21] His central argument on population is as follows:

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually, he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.

— [22]
World population 1950–2010
World population 1800-2000

In his concluding chapter, Ehrlich offered a partial solution to the "population problem", "[We need] compulsory birth regulation... [through] the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size".[22]

Ehrlich's views came to be accepted by many population planning advocates in the United States and Europe in the 1960s and 1970s.[23] Since Ehrlich introduced his idea of the "population bomb", overpopulation has been blamed for a variety of issues, including increasing poverty, high unemployment rates, environmental degradation, famine and genocide.[18] In a 2004 interview, Ehrlich reviewed the predictions in his book and found that while the specific dates within his predictions may have been wrong, his predictions about climate change and disease were valid. Ehrlich continued to advocate for population planning and co-authored the book The Population Explosion, released in 1990 with his wife Anne Ehrlich.

However, it is controversial as to whether human population stabilization will avert environmental risks. A 2014 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that given the "inexorable demographic momentum of the global human population", even mass mortality events and draconian one-child policies implemented on a global scale would still likely result in a population of 5 to 10 billion by 2100. Therefore, while reduced fertility rates are positive for society and the environment, the short term focus should be on mitigating the human impact on the environment through technological and social innovations, along with reducing overconsumption, with population planning being a long-term goal.[24][25] A letter in response, published in the same journal, argued that a reduction in population by 1 billion people in 2100 could help reduce the risk of catastrophic climate disruption.[26] A 2021 article published in Sustainability Science said that sensible population policies could advance social justice (such as by abolishing child marriage, expanding family planning services and reforms that improve education for women and girls) and avoid the abusive and coercive population control schemes of the past while at the same time mitigating the human impact on the climate, biodiversity and ecosystems by slowing fertility rates.[27]

Paige Whaley Eager argues that the shift in perception that occurred in the 1960s must be understood in the context of the demographic changes that took place at the time.[28] It was only in the first decade of the 19th century that the world's population reached one billion. The second billion was added in the 1930s, and the next billion in the 1960s. 90 percent of this net increase occurred in developing countries.[28] Eager also argues that, at the time, the United States recognised that these demographic changes could significantly affect global geopolitics. Large increases occurred in China, Mexico and Nigeria, and demographers warned of a "population explosion", particularly in developing countries from the mid-1950s onwards.[29]

In the 1980s, tension grew between population planning advocates and women's health activists who advanced women's reproductive rights as part of a human rights-based approach.[30] Growing opposition to the narrow population planning focus led to a significant change in population planning policies in the early 1990s.[further explanation needed][31]

Population planning and economics

Opinions vary among economists about the effects of population change on a nation's economic health. US scientific research in 2009 concluded that the raising of a child cost about $16,000 yearly ($291,570 total for raising the child to its 18th birthday).[32] In the US, the multiplication of this number with the yearly population growth will yield the overall cost of the population growth. Costs for other developed countries are usually of a similar order of magnitude.

Some economists, such as Thomas Sowell[33] and Walter E. Williams,[34] have argued that poverty and famine are caused by bad government and bad economic policies, not by overpopulation.

In his book The Ultimate Resource, economist Julian Simon argued that higher population density leads to more specialization and technological innovation, which in turn leads to a higher standard of living. He claimed that human beings are the ultimate resource since we possess "productive and inventive minds that help find creative solutions to man’s problems, thus leaving us better off over the long run".[35]

Simon also claimed that when considering a list of countries ranked in order by population density, there is no correlation between population density and poverty and starvation.[citation needed] Instead, if a list of countries is considered according to corruption within their respective governments, there is a significant correlation between government corruption, poverty and famine.[citation needed]

Views on population planning

Birth rate reductions

Support

As early as 1798, Thomas Malthus argued in his Essay on the Principle of Population for implementation of population planning. Around the year 1900, Sir Francis Galton said in his publication Hereditary Improvement: "The unfit could become enemies to the State if they continue to propagate." In 1968, Paul Ehrlich noted in The Population Bomb, "We must cut the cancer of population growth", and "if this was not done, there would be only one other solution, namely the 'death rate solution' in which we raise the death rate through war-famine-pestilence, etc.”

In the same year, another prominent modern advocate for mandatory population planning was Garrett Hardin, who proposed in his landmark 1968 essay Tragedy of the commons, society must relinquish the "freedom to breed" through "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon." Later on, in 1972, he reaffirmed his support in his new essay "Exploring New Ethics for Survival", by stating, "We are breeding ourselves into oblivion." Many prominent personalities, such as Bertrand Russell, Margaret Sanger (1939), John D. Rockefeller, Frederick Osborn (1952), Isaac Asimov, Arne Næss[36] and Jacques Cousteau have also advocated for population planning. Today, a number of influential people advocate population planning such as these:

The head of the UN Millennium Project Jeffrey Sachs is also a strong proponent of decreasing the effects of overpopulation. In 2007, Jeffrey Sachs gave a number of lectures (2007 Reith Lectures) about population planning and overpopulation. In his lectures, called "Bursting at the Seams", he featured an integrated approach that would deal with a number of problems associated with overpopulation and poverty reduction. For example, when criticized for advocating mosquito nets he argued that child survival was, "by far one of the most powerful ways", to achieve fertility reduction, as this would assure poor families that the smaller number of children they had would survive.[43]

Opposition

Critics of human population planning point out that attempts to curb human population growth have resulted in violations of human rights such as forced sterilization, particularly in China and India.[44] In the latter half of the twentieth century, India's population reduction program received substantial funds and powerful incentives from Western countries and international population planning organizations to reduce India's growing population. This culminated in "the Emergency," a period in the mid-1970's where millions of people were forcibly sterilized. Violent resistance to forced sterilization led to police brutality and some instances of mass shootings of civilians by police.[45] Critics also argue that supposedly voluntary population planning is often coerced.[46] Some also believe that the environmental problems caused by supposed overpopulation are better explained by other factors, and that the goal of human population reduction does not justify the threat to human rights posed by population planning policies.[47]

Other causes for opposition emerge from the feasibility of substantially impacting human population. According to some researchers, even rapid global adoption of a one-child policy would result in a world population exceeding 8 billion in 2050, and in a scenario involving catastrophic mass death of 2 billion people, world population would exceed 8 billion by 2100.[48]

The Catholic Church has opposed abortion, sterilization, and artificial contraception as a general practice but especially in regard to population planning policies.[49] Pope Benedict XVI has stated, "The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction of the poorest of all human beings."[50] The reformed Theology pastor Dr. Stephen Tong also opposes the planning of human population.[51]

Pro-natalist policies

In 1946, Poland introduced a tax on childlessness, discontinued in the 1970s, as part of natalist policies in the Communist government. From 1941 to the 1990s, the Soviet Union had a similar tax to replenish the population losses incurred during the Second World War.

The Socialist Republic of Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu severely repressed abortion, (the most common birth control method at the time) in 1966,[52][53] and forced gynecological revisions and penalties for unmarried women and childless couples. The surge of the birth rate taxed the public services received by the decreţei 770 ("Scions of the Decree 770") generation. A consequence of Ceaușescu's natalist policy is that large numbers of children ended up living in orphanages, because their parents could not cope. The vast majority of children who lived in the communist orphanages were not actually orphans, but were simply children whose parents could not afford to raise them.[54] The Romanian Revolution of 1989 preceded a fall in population growth.

Balanced birth policies

Nativity in the Western world dropped during the interwar period. Swedish sociologists Alva and Gunnar Myrdal published Crisis in the Population Question in 1934, suggesting an extensive welfare state with universal healthcare and childcare, to increase overall Swedish birth rates, and level the number of children at a reproductive level for all social classes in Sweden. Swedish fertility rose throughout World War II (as Sweden was largely unharmed by the war) and peaked in 1946.

Modern practice by country

Australia

Australia currently offers fortnightly Family Tax Benefit payments plus a free immunization scheme, and recently[when?] proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work.[55]

China

One-child era (1979–2015)

The most significant population planning system in the world was China's one-child policy, in which, with various exceptions, having more than one child was discouraged. Unauthorized births were punished by fines, although there were also allegations of illegal forced abortions and forced sterilization.[56] As part of China's planned birth policy, (work) unit supervisors monitored the fertility of married women and may decide whose turn it is to have a baby.[57]

The Chinese government introduced the policy in 1978 to alleviate the social and environmental problems of China.[58] According to government officials, the policy has helped prevent 400 million births. The success of the policy has been questioned, and reduction in fertility has also been attributed to the modernization of China.[59] The policy is controversial both within and outside of China because of its manner of implementation and because of concerns about negative economic and social consequences e.g. female infanticide. In Asian cultures, the oldest male child has responsibility of caring for the parents in their old age. Therefore, it is common for Asian families to invest most heavily in the oldest male child, such as providing college, steering them into the most lucrative careers, and so on. To these families, having an oldest male child is paramount, so in a one-child policy, daughters have no economic benefit, so daughters, especially as a first child, are often targeted for abortion or infanticide. China introduced several government reforms to increase retirement payments to coincide with the one-child policy. During that time, couples could request permission to have more than one child.[60]

China's population distribution in 2012, 2015 and 2020

According to Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein, natalist feelings run high in China's Tibet Autonomous Region, among both ordinary people and government officials. Seeing population control "as a matter of power and ethnic survival" rather than in terms of ecological sustainability, Tibetans successfully argued for an exemption of Tibetan people from the usual family planning policies in China such as the one-child policy.[61]

Two-child era (2016-2021)

In November 2014, the Chinese government allowed its people to conceive a second child under the supervision of government regulation.[62]

On 29 October 2015, the ruling Chinese Communist Party announced that all one-child policies would be scrapped, allowing all couples to have two children. The change was needed to allow a better balance of male and female children, and to grow the young population to ease the problem of paying for the aging population. The law enacting the two-child policy took effect on 1 January 2016, and replaced the previous one-child policy.[63][64]

Three-child era (2021-)

In May 2021, the Chinese government allowed its people to conceive a third child, in a move accompanied by "supportive measures" it regarded "conducive" to improving its "population structure, fulfilling the country's strategy of actively coping with an ageing population and maintaining the advantage, endowment of human resources" after declining birth rates recorded in the 2020 Chinese census.[65]

Hungary

During the Second Orbán Government, Hungary increased its family benefits spending from one of the lowest rates in the OECD to one of the highest.[66] In 2015, it amounted to nearly 4% of GDP.[67]

India

Only those with two or fewer children are eligible for election to a local government.[68]

Us two, our two ("Hum do, hamare do" in Hindi) is a slogan meaning one family, two children and is intended to reinforce the message of family planning thereby aiding population planning.

Facilities offered by government to its employees are limited to two children. The government offers incentives for families accepted for sterilization. Moreover, India was the first country to take measures for family planning back in 1952.[69]

In the south west of India lies the long narrow coastal state of Kerala. Most of its thirty-two million inhabitants live off the land and the ocean, a rich tropical ecosystem watered by two monsoons a year. It's also one of India's most crowded states – but the population is stable because nearly everybody has small families… At the root of it all is education. Thanks to a long tradition of compulsory schooling for boys and girls Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates in the World. Where women are well educated they tend to choose to have smaller families… What Kerala shows is that you don't need aggressive policies or government incentives for birthrates to fall. Everywhere in the world where women have access to education and have the freedom to run their own lives, on the whole they and their partners have been choosing to have smaller families than their parents. But reducing birthrates is very difficult to achieve without a simple piece of medical technology, contraception.

— BBC Horizon (2009), How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth

In 2019, the Population Control Bill, 2019 bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in July 2019 by Rakesh Sinha. The purpose of the bill is to control the population growth of India.

Iran

After the Iran–Iraq War, Iran encouraged married couples to produce as many children as possible to replace population lost to the war.[70]

Iran succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate from the late 1980s to 2010.[71][72] Mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained, and the government emphasized the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception.[73] This changed in 2012, when a major policy shift back towards increasing birth rates was announced. In 2014, permanent contraception and advertising of birth control were to be outlawed.[74]

Israel

In Israel, Haredi families with many children receive economic support through generous governmental child allowances, government assistance in housing young religious couples, as well as specific funds by their own community institutions.[75] Haredi women have an average of 6.7 children while the average Jewish Israeli woman has 3 children.[76]

Japan

Japan has experienced a shrinking population for many years.[77] The government is trying to encourage women to have children or to have more children – many Japanese women do not have children, or even remain single. The population is culturally opposed to immigration.[citation needed]

Some Japanese localities, facing significant population loss, are offering economic incentives. Yamatsuri, a town of 7,000 just north of Tokyo, offers parents $4,600 for the birth of a child and $460 a year for 10 years.

Myanmar

In Myanmar, the Population planning Health Care Bill requires some parents to space each child three years apart.[78] The Economist, in 2015, stated that the measure was expected to be used against the persecuted Muslim Rohingyas minority.[79]

Pakistan

Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin directed Parliament in 2006 to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia's population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.[80]

Singapore

Singapore has undergone two major phases in its population planning: first to slow and reverse the baby boom in the Post-World War II era; then from the 1980s onwards to encourage couples to have more children as the birth rate had fallen below the replacement-level fertility. In addition, during the interim period, eugenics policies were adopted.[81]

The anti-natalist policies flourished in the 1960s and 1970s: initiatives advocating small families were launched and developed into the Stop at Two programme, pushing for two-children families and promoting sterilisation. In 1984, the government announced the Graduate Mothers' Scheme, which favoured children of more well-educated mothers;[82] the policy was however soon abandoned due to the outcry in the general election of the same year.[83] Eventually, the government became pro-natalist in the late 1980s, marked by its Have Three or More plan in 1987.[84] Singapore pays $3,000 for the first child, $9,000 in cash and savings for the second; and up to $18,000 each for the third and fourth.[80]

Spain

In 2017, the government of Spain appointed Edelmira Barreira, as "Government Commissioner facing the Demographic Challenge", in a pro-natalist attempt to reverse a negative population growth rate.[85]

Turkey

In May 2012, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan argued that abortion is murder and announced that legislative preparations to severely limit the practice are underway. Erdogan also argued that abortion and C-section deliveries are plots to stall Turkey's economic growth. Prior to this move, Erdogan had repeatedly demanded that each couple have at least three children.[86]

United States

Enacted in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to those in need. Priority for services is given to people with low incomes. The Title X Family Planning program is administered through the Office of Population Affairs under the Office of Public Health and Science. It is directed by the Office of Family Planning.[87] In 2007, Congress appropriated roughly $283 million for family planning under Title X, at least 90 percent of which was used for services in family planning clinics.[87] Title X is a vital source of funding for family planning clinics throughout the nation,[88] which provide reproductive health care, including abortion.

The education and services supplied by the Title X-funded clinics support young individuals and low-income families. The goals of developing healthy families are accomplished by helping individuals and couples decide whether to have children and when the appropriate time to do so would be.[88]

Title X has made the prevention of unintended pregnancies possible.[88] It has allowed millions of American women to receive necessary reproductive health care, plan their pregnancies and prevent abortions. Title X is dedicated exclusively to funding family planning and reproductive health care services.[87]

Title X as a percentage of total public funding to family planning client services has steadily declined from 44% of total expenditures in 1980 to 12% in 2006. Medicaid has increased from 20% to 71% in the same time. In 2006, Medicaid contributed $1.3 billion to public family planning.[89]

In the early 1970s, the United States Congress established the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (Chairman John D. Rockefeller III), which was created to provide recommendations regarding population growth and its social consequences. The Commission submitted its final recommendations in 1972, which included promoting contraceptives and liberalizing abortion regulations, for example.[90]

Natalism in the United States

In a 2004 editorial in The New York Times, David Brooks expressed the opinion that the relatively high birth rate of the United States in comparison to Europe could be attributed to social groups with "natalist" attitudes.[91] The article is referred to in an analysis of the Quiverfull movement.[92] However, the figures identified for the demographic are extremely low.

Former US Senator Rick Santorum made natalism part of his platform for his 2012 presidential campaign.[93] Many of those categorized in the General Social Survey as "Fundamentalist Protestant" are more or less natalist, and have a higher birth rate than "Moderate" and "Liberal" Protestants.[94] However, Rick Santorum is not a Protestant but a practicing Catholic.

Uzbekistan

It is reported that Uzbekistan has been pursuing a policy of forced sterilizations, hysterectomies and IUD insertions since the late 1990s in order to impose population planning.[95][96][97][98][99][100][101]

See also

Fiction

References

  1. ^ "Fears grow that Japan's birth rate and aging crisis could be worsened by pandemic". The Japan Times. 18 August 2020. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  2. ^ "Japan to fund AI matchmaking to boost birth rate". BBC News. 8 December 2020. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  3. ^ Lee, David D. (27 December 2020). "Can South Korea lift the world's lowest birth rate by offering cash incentives?". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  4. ^ a b "How do countries fight falling birth rates?". BBC News. 15 January 2020. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  5. ^ "Business lobby calls for govt action to boost Finland's birth rate". Yle.fi. 19 January 2020. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  6. ^ "Hungary tries for baby boom with tax breaks and loan forgiveness". BBC News. 11 February 2019. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  7. ^ Rooney, Katharine (12 November 2019). "This is how Estonia is growing its population". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  8. ^ Männi, Marian (11 July 2020). "Feature: Estonians starting to have more kids — because they can". ERR Online. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  9. ^ a b c Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. p. 7. ISBN 9781563244070.
  10. ^ a b Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. p. 6. ISBN 9781563244070.
  11. ^ Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781563244070.
  12. ^ a b c Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. p. 8. ISBN 9781563244070.
  13. ^ Hezel, Francis X. (1983). The First Taint of Civilization: A History of the Caroline and Marshall Islands in Pre-colonial Days, 1521–1885. Pacific Islands Monograph Series. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 92–94. ISBN 9780824816438.
  14. ^ a b Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. p. 10. ISBN 9781563244070.
  15. ^ a b c d Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. p. 9. ISBN 9781563244070.
  16. ^ Neurath, Paul (1994). From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 10–11. ISBN 9781563244070.
  17. ^ a b Rosenberg, M. (9 September 2007). "Thomas Malthus on Population". Archived from the original on 24 June 2009.
  18. ^ a b Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 9780826515285. reproductive rights.
  19. ^ Bleier, R. The Home Page of the International Society of Malthus. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from The International Society of Malthus Web site: "Malthus Society Rationale and Core Principles". Archived from the original on 2009-06-18. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
  20. ^ "Thomas Robert Malthus, 1766-1834". The History of Economic Thought Website. Archived from the original on 1 August 2009.
  21. ^ Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 3. ISBN 9780826515285. reproductive rights.
  22. ^ a b Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 3. ISBN 9780826515285. reproductive rights.
  23. ^ Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780826515285. reproductive rights.
  24. ^ McGrath, Matt (27 October 2014). "Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'". BBC. Archived from the original on 4 May 2016. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  25. ^ Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Brook, Barry W. (2014). "Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (46): 16610–16615. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11116610B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1410465111. PMC 4246304. PMID 25349398.
  26. ^ Spears, Dean (2015). "Smaller human population in 2100 could importantly reduce the risk of climate catastrophe". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (18): E2270. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112E2270S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501763112. PMC 4426416. PMID 25848063.
  27. ^ Wolf, C.; Ripple, W.J.; Crist, E. (2021). "Human population, social justice, and climate policy" (PDF). Sustainability Science. 16 (5): 1753–1756. Bibcode:2021SuSc...16.1753W. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00951-w. S2CID 233404010.
  28. ^ a b Whaley Eager, Paige (2004). Global Population Policy. Ashgate Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 9780754641629.
  29. ^ Whaley Eager, Paige (2004). Global Population Policy. Ashgate Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 9780754641629.
  30. ^ Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 2. ISBN 9780826515285. reproductive rights.
  31. ^ Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 9780826515285. reproductive rights.
  32. ^ Abbott, Charles (4 August 2009). "Pricetag to raise a child -- $291,570, says U.S". Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 August 2010.
  33. ^ Thomas Sowell (12 February 1998). "Thomas Sowell Julian Simon, combatant in a 200-year war". Archived from the original on 8 July 2009.
  34. ^ Walter Williams (24 February 1999). "Population control nonsense". Archived from the original on 15 May 2016.
  35. ^ Moore, S. (March–April 1998). "Julian Simon Remembered: it's a Wonderful Life". CATO Institute Web site. Archived from the original on 26 June 2009.
  36. ^ Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (1998). Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism. NY: New York University Press, ISBN 0-8147-3110-4
  37. ^ Leake, Jonathan (3 August 2003). "Attenborough cut population by half". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 8 May 2009.
  38. ^ Lloyd, Robin (30 June 2011). "Laureate urges next generation to address population control as central issue". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 10 April 2012.
  39. ^ "Local to Global: Kingston University". Archived from the original on 27 May 2008.
  40. ^ Schwarz, Walter (1 September 2004). "Crowd control". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 16 November 2016.
  41. ^ Crist, Eileen; Ripple, William J.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Rees, William E.; Wolf, Christopher (2022). "Scientists' warning on population" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 845: 157166. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.845o7166C. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157166. PMID 35803428. S2CID 250387801.
  42. ^ "Last Word Archive - New Scientist". newscientist.com. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  43. ^ "Bursting at the Seams". Archived from the original on 12 April 2009.
  44. ^ Follet, Chelsea (2020). "Neo-Malthusianism and Coercive Population Control in China and India: Overpopulation Concerns Often Result in Coercion". Cato Institute. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  45. ^ Gupte, Prajakta R. (2017). "India: "The Emergency" and the Politics of Mass Sterilization". Education About Asia. 22 (3).
  46. ^ Nandagiri, Rishita (2021). "What's so troubling about 'voluntary' family planning anyway? A feminist perspective". Population Studies. 75 (sup1): 221–234. doi:10.1080/00324728.2021.1996623. PMID 34902284. S2CID 245125394.
  47. ^ Shrivastava, Aseem (1992). "Overpopulation: The Great Red Herring?". Economic and Political Weekly. 27 (38).
  48. ^ Bradshaw, Corey J.A.; Brook, Barry W. (2014). "Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (46): 16610–16615. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11116610B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1410465111. PMC 4246304. PMID 25349398.
  49. ^ Saunders, William. "Church Has Always Condemned Abortion". Catholic News Agency. Arlington Catholic Herald. Archived from the original on 21 March 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
  50. ^ "42nd World Day of Peace 2009, Fighting Poverty to Build Peace - BENEDICT XVI". www.vatican.va. Archived from the original on 11 October 2011. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  51. ^ "唐崇荣牧师 圣经难解经文 第二十九讲 诺亚咒诅迦南 - 宗教与信仰 - 旺旺网 给你一片纯净的天空". Archived from the original on 23 March 2017. Retrieved 22 March 2017. 唐崇荣牧师 圣经难解经文 第二十九讲 诺亚咒诅迦南, Retrieved 22 March 2017.
  52. ^ Scarlat, Sandra (17 May 2005), "'Decreţeii': produsele unei epoci care a îmbolnăvit România" [Scions of the Decree': Products of an Era that Sickened Romania], Evenimentul Zilei (in Romanian), archived from the original on 26 September 2007.
  53. ^ Kligman, Gail (1998), The Politics of Duplicity. Controlling Reproduction in Ceausescu's Romania, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, ISBN 9780520919853.
  54. ^ "What happened to Romania's orphans?". BBC News. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  55. ^ "Family Tax Benefit: Department of Social Services, Australian Government". www.dss.gov.au. Retrieved 22 June 2022.
  56. ^ Arthur E. Dewey, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration Testimony before the House International Relations Committee Washington, DC 14 December 2004 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 31 July 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  57. ^ "China : a country study". lcweb2.loc.gov. Archived from the original on 3 March 2013.
  58. ^ Pascal Rocha da Silva (2006), La politique de l'enfant unique en République Populaire de Chine (PDF), Université de Genève, pp. 22–28, archived from the original (PDF) on 28 November 2007
  59. ^ "Has China's one-child policy worked?". BBC News. 20 September 2007. Archived from the original on 19 July 2008.
  60. ^ Fisher, Max (16 November 2013). "China's rules for when families can and can't have more than one child". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 10 June 2016. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  61. ^ Goldstein, Melvyn; Cynthia, Beall (March 1991). "China's Birth Control Policy in the Tibet Autonomous Region". Asian Survey. 31 (3): 285–303. doi:10.2307/2645246. JSTOR 2645246.
  62. ^ "Why China's Second-Baby Boom Might Not Happen". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 6 March 2016.
  63. ^ "China to end one-child policy and allow two". BBC. 29 October 2015.
  64. ^ "China officially ends one-child policy, signing into law bill allowing married couples to have two children". ABC Online. 27 December 2015.
  65. ^ "China allows three children in major policy shift". BBC News. 31 May 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
  66. ^ "The V4's greatest existential threat". Visegrad Insight. 5 August 2014.
  67. ^ "OECD - Public spending on family benefits" (PDF).
  68. ^ Buch, Nirmala (2005). "Law of Two-Child Norm in Panchayats: Implications, Consequences and Experiences". Economic and Political Weekly. 40 (24): 2421–2429. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4416748.
  69. ^ Aalok Ranjan Chaurasia, Ravendra Singh. "40 YEARS OF PLANNED FAMILY PLANNING EFFORTS IN INDIA" (PDF). p. 1. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  70. ^ Beaugé, Florence (2 February 2016). "'Get back to your washing machine': Iran's ambitious women". Le monde diplomatique. Archived from the original on 8 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  71. ^ Abbasi-Shavasi, Mohammad J.; McDonald, Pater (February 2005). "National and Provincial-level fertility trends in Iran, 1972-2000" (PDF). Working Paper in Demography (94): 9–10. Retrieved 20 February 2019.
  72. ^ "Iran's declining birth rate alarms country's leaders". DW.COM. 30 July 2020. Retrieved 22 June 2022.
  73. ^ "Iran's Birth Rate Plummeting at Record Pace". Archived from the original on 17 September 2008.
  74. ^ "Iran bans permanent contraception in attempt to increase population". independent.co.uk. 11 August 2014. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  75. ^ Friedlander, Dov (2002). "Fertility in Israel: Is the Transition to Replacement Level in Sight?" (PDF). Completing the Fertility Transition. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 December 2017.
  76. ^ Morland, Paul (7 April 2014). "Israeli women do it by the numbers". The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 21 May 2014. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
  77. ^ "Japan's demography: the incredible shrinking country". The Economist. 25 March 2014. Archived from the original on 24 March 2017. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  78. ^ "Myanmar president signs off on contested population law". 23 May 2015 – via Associated Press.
  79. ^ "Rohingyas: Still in peril: Myanmar's repression of Rohingyas continues apace". The Economist. Singapore. 6 June 2015. Archived from the original on 7 June 2015. Retrieved 7 June 2015. This measure grants local authorities the power to mandate that mothers in areas deemed to have high rates of population growth have children no fewer than three years apart. Buddhist chauvinists in Myanmar have fomented fears of high birth rates among Muslims; this measure is likely to be used against Rohingyas.
  80. ^ a b Chivers, C.J (11 May 2006). "Putin Urges Plan to Reverse Slide in the Birth Rate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 May 2017.
  81. ^ Wong, Theresa; Yeoh, Brenda S.A (June 2003), Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-natalist Population Policies in Singapore (PDF), Asian MetaCentre Research Paper Series, archived from the original (PDF) on 27 July 2011, retrieved 30 November 2013
  82. ^ Louhiala, Pekka (2004). Preventing intellectual disability: ethical and clinical issues. Cambridge University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-521-53371-3.
  83. ^ Quah, Jon (1985). "Singapore in 1984: Leadership Transition in an Election Year". Asian Survey. 25 (2): 220–231. doi:10.2307/2644306. JSTOR 2644306.
  84. ^ "Singapore: Population Control Policies". Country Studies. Library of Congress. 1989. Archived from the original on 11 April 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011.
  85. ^ "Spain appoints 'sex tsar' in bid to boost declining population". The Independent. 25 February 2017. Archived from the original on 26 March 2017. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  86. ^ "US, Turkey: abortion". Reuters (article). 3 June 2012. Archived from the original on 2 January 2015.
  87. ^ a b c "Office of Population Affairs". Archived from the original on 19 October 2007.
  88. ^ a b c "Newsroom and Media Kit - Planned Parenthood". www.plannedparenthood.org. Archived from the original on 8 December 2007. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  89. ^ Sonfield, Adam; Alrich, Casey; Gold, Rachel Benson (2008). "Public Funding for Family Planning, Sterilization and Abortion Services, FY 1980–2006" (PDF). Occasional Report. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 September 2017.
  90. ^ Population and the American future; the report. United States. Washington. 1972. hdl:2027/mdp.39015007261855 – via HathiTrust Digital Library.
  91. ^ Brooks, David (7 December 2004), "The New Red-Diaper Babies", The New York Times, archived from the original on 11 March 2007, retrieved 21 January 2006.
  92. ^ Joyce, Kathryn (27 November 2006), "Arrows for the War", The Nation, archived from the original on 20 March 2015, retrieved 10 March 2015.
  93. ^ Kim, Seung Min (15 January 2012). "Santorum: More babies, please!". Politico. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012.
  94. ^ McKeown, John (14 June 2010). "Receptions of Israelite Nation-building: Modern Protestant Natalism and Martin Luther". Dialog. 49 (2): 133–140. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6385.2010.00517.x. hdl:10034/254540.
  95. ^ "Birth Control by Decree in Uzbekistan". IWPR Institute for War & Peace Reporting. 18 November 2005. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013.
  96. ^ "BBC News: Uzbekistan's policy of secretly sterilising women". BBC. 12 April 2012. Archived from the original on 5 April 2015.
  97. ^ "Crossing Continents: Forced Sterilisation in Uzbekistan". BBC. 12 April 2012. Archived from the original on 3 September 2016.
  98. ^ "Uzbeks Face Forced Sterilization". The Moscow Times. 10 March 2010. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013.
  99. ^ "Shadow Report: UN Committee Against Torture" (PDF). United Nations, authors Rapid Response Group and OMCT. November 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 November 2014.
  100. ^ Antelava, Natalia (12 April 2012). "Uzbekistan's policy of secretly sterilising women". BBC World Service. Archived from the original on 2 March 2015.
  101. ^ Antelava, Natalia (12 April 2012). "Uzbekistan's policy of secretly sterilising women". BBC World Service. Archived from the original on 5 April 2015.

Further reading

External links

This page was last edited on 14 April 2024, at 22:21
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.