Family planning should not mean family restriction.
Two Australian legal academics consider whether one way to reduce population growth is to include family planning in carbon markets.
The NYTimes is concerned that the Egyptian government is no longer talking about family planning and population control.
I opened the newspaper a couple of weeks ago to read the headline that Australia will be doubling an aspect of its foreign aid to $50 million to assist the poor women of the world. What a wonderful idea. Perhaps the aid will be going towards vital medication to women in Sub-Saharan Africa; perhaps food and vitamins to women in South Asia; or perhaps it will pay for education and training in more effective farming methods? No. The money will go completely towards ‘family planning’. And not just our $50 million, add to that half a billion dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with a total amount from worldwide governments and the private sector of $2.6 billion.
Norman Borlaug should have been an American hero for his work in preventing the population bomb from exploding, but his name is still barely known in the United States.
Population researchers have rejected research suggesting population control should be used to fight global warming.
A pioneer in the ethics of population control is having misgivings. Daniel Callahan, one of the founders of modern bioethics, writes in the latest Hastings Center Report that his earlier interest in the ethical dimension of bringing down birthrates seems to have missed something.