As the nation sinks deeper into economic crisis, we are transfixed by the story of Nadya Suleman, an unemployed single mom who chose to have 14 children by in-vitro fertilization. Meanwhile, British environmental advisor Jonathon Porritt set off a firestorm by suggesting that it is "irresponsible" to have more than two children.
The intensity of both debates suggests a growing unease with the relationship between human numbers and resources. In Suleman's case, the resources are financial; given her lack of financial support, people ask, what right does she have to bring so many children into the world? For Porritt and his supporters, the resources are environmental: population growth and resource consumption, they say, have outgrown the planet's capacity to provide for us all.
There is some truth to both arguments. The relationship between human numbers and economic well-being is complicated, but there is a strong association between large families and poverty. The relationship between population growth and the environment is equally complex; resources are distributed so inequitably and used so wastefully that it's impossible to determine how many people the Earth could support. But it is clear that slower growth would give us a fighting chance to manage many environmental problems. Smaller families are not a panacea for the economic and environmental problems before us - but they could help lower the hurdles we must leap.
Still, the public shaming of Suleman and others who choose to have more than two children is surely the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on those who make questionable choices, why not focus on those who have no choice? Right now, some 200 million women in developing countries lack access to family planning services, and countless others lack the power to make real choices about childbearing because of crushing poverty or gender discrimination. Even in the United States, half of pregnancies are unintended, and too many lack access to the health care they need to plan and space healthy pregnancies.
The ability to choose the number and spacing of our children is a fundamental human right. That choice - or the lack thereof - has huge implications for the health and well-being of women and their families. At a family level, it can determine whether children get the education and other resources they need to grow and flourish. At a global level, it will determine whether human numbers -- now at 6.8 billion -- will climb to eight or even 11 billion by mid-century.
These are problems we know how to address. Real choice means access to voluntary family planning and other reproductive health services. It means education and employment opportunities, especially for women. And it means tackling the inequities - both gender and economic - that are associated with rapid population growth.
Nadya Suleman has captured our attention, but she is not the norm. In general, where people have the means and the power to make real choices about childbearing, they have fewer children, and invest more in each child. Some people will make choices we disagree with. Let's stop worrying about them, and turn our attention to those who have no choices at all.
