Infertility crisis : The UNFPA has released a report
The UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) recently published a report under the title “The true infertility crisis”. As an organisation affiliated to the UN, it regularly publishes reports and recommendations which influence the public policies of many nations. Alliance VITA has completed an in-depth analysis of the report published in 2022 on the subject of “Uninded pregnancies”.
The basis of the recent report is a survey conducted on 14,000 people in 14 nations, undertaken by the YouGov survey agency. The sub-title indicates the basic theme on the subject of fertility. The aim is to ensure “reproductive autonomy in a changing world”.
Fertility : a changing world.
In 1968, an American university lecturer, Paul Ehrlich, published a book “The P bomb” (The population bomb) to warn about what he claimed to be the prime danger : future famines due to “overpopulation”. In fact, the world population has more than tripled since 1950 : from 2.5 to 8 billion souls. Two major factors have contributed to this increase : a much increased life expectancy, together with a level of fertility which remained above the so-called “replacement level” (a level usually taken as 2.1 by demographers). Life expectancy at birth has constantly been increasing, to 73 years in 2019. It was a mere 46 years back in 1950. The contextual fertility index, over the same period, dropped from 5 to around 2.3. As noted in particular in the report, the alarmist predictions and the Malthusian mentality have prevailed for many years in the family policies of many nations. We have seen the result of the liberticidal measures taken in China, India, and elsewhere to impose by force a limit on births (forced sterilisation, abortion …).
However, from the fear of the ” population bomb”, attention has turned in many nations to a fear of demographic collapse. The expression “demographic winter” seems applicable in those nations where the fertility index remains low in spite of measures to boost the birth rate. The about-turn of the policy in China is undoubtedly one of the most striking.
Demographic projections are subject to much uncertainty. According to their latest projections, the UN is forecasting a peak of 10 billion around 2080. A report by the Organisation published in 1992 predicted that population level for 2050.
Private institutes have made lower projections. The IHME (Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation) an Institute partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, announced in 2020 a population peak in 2064 of 9.7 billion with a subsequent decline to 8.8 billion in 2100. The difference in projections is due essentially to a different estimate of the fertility index: 1.66 for the IHME and 1.84 for the UN.
There is no consensus on the trajectory of the world population, and nothing indicates that a situation with a low index can be turned around durably.
Number of children desired : The damaging shortfall between aspirations and reality.
The UNFPA report therefore considers a new factor : a fertility index which could remain durably low and below the replacement threshold in many western and Asian states etc. The authors point out that “one in four people are currently living in a nation where the size of the population is considered to have already reached its peak. The result will be societies such as have never been seen before: communities with a greater proportion of old-age people, lesser proportions of young people and, maybe, lesser numbers”.
Logically, the survey attempted to better understand whether adults had the number of children which they desired. The survey provides information both on those of an age to procreate and on the previous generations. In the group of over 50s, across the 14 nations, 31% declared that they had less children than they would ideally have chosen, and 12% declared having had more. 38% declared that they had the desired number, and 19% did not reply. For the generations of an age to procreate, 18% thought they will not be able to have the number of children they want: 11% thought they will have less, and 7% that they will have more. A complete table (page 16) on the “obstacles” which result in having less children provides detailed information per nation. Economic reasons greatly outweigh health reasons. 39% of those surveyed quoted “financial limitations” and 21% unemployment or job insecurity. Infertility or difficulties to conceive was quoted by 12%. These percentages vary little between states : wealthy states (USA, Sweden…) or poor states (India, Morocco). The UNFPA in its analysis, puts forward : the inability of people to achieve their desired fertility level is the true fertility crisis – not the overpopulation nor the under-population.
An individualist approach to procreation.
Following that analysis, what does the report suggest ?
According to its authors, the solution resides in the reinforcement of individual autonomy for procreation choices. The idea is to position individual choices as a priority for the States : “This crisis is not rooted in individual reproductive decisions which do not correspond with the needs of a State or an economy. On the contrary, the crisis is rooted in environments and political choices which are not aligned with the desires of individuals“. The importance of individual freedom for the most intimate choices cannot be denied. Throughout its report, the UNFPA lists the need for information and for care which remain definitely inadequate in all nations, at varying degrees. Similarly, a better equilibrium in the sharing of tasks between men and women, a split which must remain a decision by the couple, is also a factor which counts in the acceptance of a child.
The report nevertheless suffers major discrepancies in its analysis.
The first is in the choice of making procreation an individual matter and not a question for couples. Procreation is not an activity like any others. First of all, the acceptance of a new human being goes beyond any political or economic analysis. Moreover, procreation is undertaken as a couple, through the exercise of man/woman sexuality.
Other choices by the UNFPA are also quite questionable : under the general term “reproductive right”, ART without restriction, abortion without time limits are included in the same way as information on sexuality, the care needed by women etc.
The UNFPA is therefore calling for a new strategy of procreative autonomy, centred on the individual. That approach raises a basic question: would such an individualistic culture favour the acceptance of a child, which necessarily involves giving up individual activities in order to provide the space which the child requires ?
Suivez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux :
