LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kathy Dettwyler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:00:06 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
The issue of how breastfeeding relates to population growth is a complex
one.  Demographic Transition Theory says that all populations "naturally" go
through the same three stages as they "develop" economically and
technologically.

Stage 1 -- high fertility, high childhood mortality (deaths 0-5 years);
population growth rate is steady

Stage 2 -- high fertility, low childhood mortality due to improvements in
health (immunizations and antibiotics) and diet and sanitation; population
growth rate skyrockets

Stage 3 -- low fertility, low childhood mortality; birth rates
"automatically" come down as people realize that more of their children will
survive, so they don't have to have so many; population growth rate is
steady again, but now at a much higher level

The longer a population stays in Stage 2, the bigger the overall population
if/when it gets to Stage 3.

Many demographers predicted that "Third World" countries would see a drop in
the fertility rate as childhood mortality rates fell.  In some countries,
this has happened, in others it has not.  Demographic Transition Theory
seems to not hold true under certain circumstances, such as when children
are very desired, when they are viewed as the source of happiness and wealth
and status and contentment with life for their parents and extended families.

For scholarly research on this topic, see Penn Handwerker's book "Culture
and Reproduction : An Anthropological Critique of Demographic Transition
Theory."

In one of the case studies described in this book, women realized quickly
that improvements in health and diet meant fewer child deaths, and this led
them to curtail breastfeeding so they could have more children -- as they
knew very well that prolonged breastfeeding led to 3-4 year birth spacings.
If they could get good survival with 1-2 year or 2-3 year birth spacings,
then that meant more children overall, which was their goal.

In another case study, women realized quickly that improvements in health
and diet meant fewer child deaths, but the same forces that led to
improvement in health and diet (economic and technological development) also
led to many of their children moving to the capitol city, away from the
rural villages.  So instead of losing children to sickness in early
childhood, they lost children in their late teens to the lure of "bright
lights, big city."  In order to have several children who would stay in the
village to support them in their old age, they had to have the same number
of children they used to -- thus, no lowering of the fertility rate.

Another thing to realize is that each person in the US consumes 30-40 times
the resources of a person in a Third World country.  Rather than focus on
trying to get people in Third World countries to limit population size, a
more logical approach would be to try to get people in the US to consume
fewer resources, and/or to have fewer children, and to stop trying to turn
Third World countries into consumer nations modelled after the West.

Kathy Dettwyler

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2