Africa, Don't Blame the Whites | The Problem with Africa | Africa's Leaders Need a Paradigm Shift in Their Thinking

“... World population growth is widely recognized within the Government as a current danger of the highest magnitude calling for urgent measures...... it is of the utmost urgency that governments now recognize the facts and implications of population growth, determine the ultimate population sizes that make sense for their countries and start vigorous programs at once to achieve their desired goals.”

“... population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources -- in this rough order of importance -- all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence... Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.”

“...there is general agreement that up to the point when cost per acceptor rises rapidly, family planning expenditures are generally considered the best investment a country can make in its own future.”
~ National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth ~

______________________________________________________________

Africa, Don't Blame the Whites

Mfonobong Nsehe | American Chronicle

August 25, 2008

Recently, as part of an academic assignment at school, I was engaged in an intellectual debate with a few colleagues. We were seeking answers to the roots of Africa´s problems. It was an interesting discussion for me. Shockingly, the majority of my colleagues subscribed to the idea that the major cause of Africa´s social-political and economic problems was the legacy left behind by the colonial masters. As far as they were concerned, the colonialists ruined Africa for good. For the records, they had some strong arguments to support their claims. I do not intend to go into that.

Africa is known as the problem continent. And indeed, the problems are legion- Poverty, diseases, famine, poor leadership, religious conflicts, ethnic clashes and corruption are a few of them. With each passing day, the problems increase. For long, the economic and social underdevelopment of the African nation has been blamed on white colonialists who exploited the land and left Africa bare. Up till now, the blame game continues.

Africans are usually quick to blame most of its problems on the evils of colonialism. We sometimes blame the violence on the borders colonialists created that ignored ethnicity. Many African nations have been independent for four decades. If colonial borders were a major problem, how come they haven't changed them?

Colonialism cannot explain Third World poverty. Some of today's richest countries are former colonies, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of today's poorest countries were never colonies, such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan. The colonialism argument is simply a cover-up for African dictators and people.

For as long as African keep bickering about the past without focusing on the future, the African people will continue to suffer. Pointing fingers at the colonial masters won't change the fact that the majority of people in Africa are living and dying in horrible conditions. The Europeans colonized Africa about 400 years ago. Right now, Africans are in trouble because they cannot manage their own problems. Instead of brainstorming and finding solutions to its numerous social and economic problems, the people hold out a begging bowl to the west in one hand, while punishing the remaining white people in the land with the other. (Does Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe and the Zimbabweans come to mind?)

We are responsible for our problems, but we prefer to blame others than to take a good look in the mirror. Fine, the colonialists were a bunch of bunch of greedy no-gooders, but if truths must be told, the self-interest of early colonialists pales in comparison to the personal greed of African leaders today. Those who blame Africa's problems on colonialism must not forget that the experience was not unique to Africa. Generally, the Asian countries that also experienced colonialism are doing fairly well. So what has Africa, or to be more precise, its leaders, been doing for the past 40 years?

What Africa needs is a lot of self-criticism. The fact that Africa breeds and worships figures like Mugabe, because of their own anti-white racism is disheartening. It's incredible that any white sends aid to Africa when Africans are anti-white racists.

You can't solve Africa's problems until the lies are all stripped away and you start comparing yourself to say Taiwan. Taiwan is not white, yet they have made amazing progress. They made this progress by managing their economy properly, and by working hard.

We need to strip away the black ideology that says that whites didn't do anything other than enslave blacks and are rich because of the exploitation of blacks. Taiwan didn't get rich because of that. So why do Africans think that that's how whites got rich?

And blacks enslaved blacks too; it's part of human history everywhere. So why isn't Africa rich due to the enslavement of themselves?

Were Africans better off under colonial administration than the despots who replaced them? Most African countries have had their independence for over three decades, yet, the report card our leaders have shown us are wars, famine and gross corruption. While it may be argued that Britain and other European countries did us more harm than good in colonizing us, it is high time we faced reality and realized that we are the architects of our own destiny. We need to choose what is good and bad, what future we want, and whether colonialism took us closer to what we want.

It's time we as Africans took responsibility for our troubles and stopped trying to guilt-trip the West into accepting responsibility for our problems. Since time immemorial, there have been empires- even African. These empires have always left great damage in their wake, but such damage is rectified through rebuilding and hard work, but not by laying blames and casting aspersions. As long as we look back in history to blame our troubles on the colonial masters, Africa will continually be the backward continent the whole world believes we are. To turn around the fortunes of Africa, it will take work and vision. And so Africa, enough with the blame games. Let´s shut up, re-examine ourselves, go back to the drawing board, rectify our mistakes and move on with our lives.


Mfonobong Nsehe is the founder of Echo Africa- a start-up Think Tank which tackles African development issues. E-mail: mfon.nsehe@gmail.com

Source: American Chronicle

______________________________________________________________

The Problem With Africa

Mfonobong Nsehe | American Chronicle

February 17, 2009

Africa is known as the problem continent. Needless to say, the problems are many. Poverty, diseases, famine, poor leadership, religious conflicts, ethnic clashes and corruption are a few of them. With each passing day, the problems increase. It has been a series of disasters, with Africa recovering from one disaster, only to fall into another.

Africa´s numerous problems are two-fold: One being the natural problems such as Drought and famine, and the several deadly diseases such as Cholera, Typhoid, HIV/AIDS and Malaria which are most peculiar to the African nation. There is little we can do about these than to take preventive measures.

And then there are the problems Africans have created for themselves- problems which have continually hindered the success and progress of Africa for many, many years. We all know them by heart- Corruption, poor governance, poverty, religious and ethnic clashes stand out among the rest. Over the years, we have witnessed civil wars and related conflicts that have resulted in genocides such as we have seen in the DR Congo, Rwanda and Sudan´s Darfur region. These conflicts have been instigated by us Africans.

Here in Africa, a lot of debates have been going on as to the real causes of Africa´s problems. Many propositions have been made. Some ignorant people are quick to blame the colonial masters for about everything. Ethnic violence for instance, is blamed on the borders colonialists created that ignored ethnicity. Some Africans blame the underdevelopment of Africa on white colonialists who exploited the land and left Africa bare.

And then some Intellectuals and renowned scholars have summarized the problem of Africa into a failure of the continent´s leadership. To an extent, I tend to agree. However, in my real opinion, the problem of Africa is Africans themselves. They are the one who elect people into office, not based on the credibility of people to lead, but on how much bribe they are given by the political contestants. It is commonplace in many African states to find people vote individuals they know nothing about into government simply because the candidate bribes them with a few dollars. Africans have thrown their dignity to the wind. We have witnessed civil wars and related conflicts that have culminated in genocides of the sort that have been witnessed in Rwanda, some parts of the DR Congo, and in Sudan´s Darfur region. These conflicts have been instigated by us Africans themselves. It is unfortunate that Africans can wake up one morning and use machetes to kill a fellow countryperson because they are from different tribes. These conflicts have many of the time led to economic crisis, which in turn culminate into the poverty Africa is so famed for.

I will not deny that Africa has governance problems. Like hell, it does. If truths must be told, the majority of African leaders are a bunch of greedy no-gooders who are in power more to secure the futures of themselves and their families, than to develop their nations. In Africa, a position in government is viewed as an express ticket to wealth and prosperity. Hence, once elected into power, the majority of African leaders preoccupy themselves with acquiring wealth from the country´s coffers rather than dealing with the issues at hand affecting the problems of Africa.

African leaders have the mentality that once in power, they have to secure the future for themselves, their children´s and relatives´. Most of them get into power, neglecting the needs of the people who voted them into power (in democratic situations), and instead, devote their energies towards unscrupulously enriching themselves and relatives.

This mentality is fast gaining popularity to the youth—the future leaders. Unless African leaders do away with that mentality, Africa will always remain retrogressive. What is needed in Africa is a paradigm shift in the thinking of Africans, and a change in the entire political ideology in Africa.

It all starts with the mind. Three things Africans must do: First, stop blaming the colonialists for the underdevelopment of Africa. If anything, I think they still make up for it by the frequent aid they throw our way as Africans- for which Africa should be thankful. Secondly, our current and future African leaders must change their thinking patterns from thinking of government as a business venture, but rather, as selfless service to people. Finally, Africans must learn to live in love and unity- refusing to be divided by tribal, ethnic or religious lines whatever the case may be. If Africa can do this, Africa will well be on its way to seeing a new day. If Africa refuses, the continent is doomed forever.

Source: American Chronicle

______________________________________________________________

Africa's Leaders Need a Paradigm Shift in Their Thinking

Mfonobong Nsehe | American Chronicle

July 25, 2008

When Sudanese Telecoms billionaire, Mohammed Ibrahim launched the annual $5million prize for exemplary leadership in Africa, he imagined that the money would be enough to motivate Africa´s leaders to shun corruption, greed and self-interest and work towards developing their countries. He actually imagined that the money would go a long way in improving the continent´s sickening leadership problem.

But what attraction does $5million really hold for a typical African leader who controls billions of dollars of a country´s resources?

While Ibrahim´s intention in giving the prize was well motivated, it is very unlikely that the money will do much in solving Africa´s leadership problem. Ibrahim´s gift was a sort of incentive to entice Africa´s leaders to shun greed and corruption, and encourage selfless service in governance. It is wrong to assume that the morality of African leaders can be bought with money. You can never solve a greed problem with money.

The only way Africa is going to overcome its leadership problem is for the leaders themselves to have a paradigm shift in thinking, shun their avaricious tendencies, and scrap the idea that once in power, they are responsible for themselves and their families. Africans have gone through decades of untold pain, suffering, poverty and misery not because the continent is poor, but because the leaders have committed to serving themselves before anyone else.

As far as natural resources are concerned, Africa is arguably the world's richest continent. It houses about 50% of the world's gold, a huge chunk of the world's diamond reserves, chromium, cobalt, manganese, millions of acres of untilled farmland, as well as other natural resources. In spite of this, Africans are still the most impoverished people in the world. Its people live in the poorest situations imaginable. The bottom 25 spots of the United Nations (UN) quality of life index are regularly filled by African nations. Over 400 million people in Africa live on less than a dollar per day.

Africa has not been on the road to recovery as a result of the role of post-independent and contemporary African leadership. These bunch of leaders apparently do not care about the situation of their countries. How can one explain the fact that in an economy like Zimbabwe where millions of children can barely get an education, the country´s first lady, Grace Mugabe squandered $80,000 on a shopping spree in Italy, as reported on the 8th June, 2008 edition of the Zimbabwean Times newspaper.

Even the leaders who steal the country´s resources do not even do the country the favor of ´reinvesting´ the resources in their countries. Instead, they stash the money in off- shore accounts and invest in foreign companies. The late Nigerian military dictator, Sani Abacha stole billions of dollars from the country´s coffers and stashed them in foreign accounts in Switzerland and other tax havens. His son, Mohammed Abacha, bought shares in foreign blue-chip companies.

African leaders have never been able to control their greed. General Olusegun Obasanjo, the immediate former president of Nigeria who during his tenure as president ´fought´ corruption was eventually discovered to have misappropriated billions of dollars of the country´s funds which was meant to deal with Nigeria´s electricity crisis. Nigeria currently has the worst power situation in Africa. Parts of major urban cities go for days without electricity supply.

King Mswati III of Swaziland has spent millions of dollars on palaces for his numerous wives, $400,000 on a single Mercedes car, and hundreds of thousands of dollars annually celebrating his birthdays, while his people live in abject poverty. Mobutu Seseko, the infamous Zaire despot embezzled country´s resources such diamonds in the Congo and country funds to the tune of billions of dollars. It was said that he had the capacity to pay the entire military from his personal coffers. At a time, he was said to have been richer than his own country.

Even in situations where money is used within the country, it is often spent on frivolities that hardly benefit the economy or those in dire need of government assistance. Lavish palaces like Cameroon´s Unity Palace, fleet of cars and jet planes have become status symbols for African regimes and symbols of political greed.

Former Emperor Bokassa of Central African Republic for example, wasted $20 million of his country´s money on a meaningless coronation. During his reign, poverty, political killings, and outrageous plundering of state resources characterized his government.

For years now, African leaders have adopted the mentality that once in power, they have to secure the future of themselves, their children´s and relatives´. Most of them get into power, neglecting the needs of the people who voted them into power (in democratic situations), and instead, devote their energy towards unscrupulously enriching themselves and relatives. This mentality has lived on with African leaders for years now and slowly but surely, this mentality is transferring to the youth- the future leaders. Except African leaders do away with that mentality, Africa will always remain a retrogressive continent. In the light of this, what is needed in Africa is paradigm shift in the thinking of African leaders, and a change in the entire political ideology in Africa. It all starts with the mind. Once our current African leaders and future leaders change their mindset and resolve to serve their people and not themselves, Africa will well be on its way to seeing a new day.

Source: American Chronicle

High birth rates hamper development in poorer countries | UN: World Population over 9 Billion by 2050 | Sex is Main Cause of Pop. Growth

Today, 6.5 billion humans depend entirely on oil for food, energy, plastics & chemicals. Population growth is on a collision course with the inevitable decline in oil production.

To think that we can advocate for human rights, peace, and social justice while ignoring their necessary ecological basis—is both intellectually dishonest and ultimately self-defeating.

The longer we put off choosing the nicer methods of achieving demographic stability, the more likely the nasty ones become, whether imposed by nature or by some fascistic regime. Urine Good Company might represent a mild version of what could actually be in store if we let the marketplace, corporations, and secretive, militaristic governments come up with eugenic solutions to our population dilemma.
~ Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin | Population Growth: Most Powerful Force on Earth, Money&Markets ~

High birth rates hamper development in poorer countries, warns UN forum

United Nations

1 April 2009 – Rapid population growth, fuelled by high fertility, presents a barrier to reducing poverty levels and reaching other internationally agreed development goals, experts attending the current session of the United Nations population body said today.

The meeting of the Commission on Population and Development, which began on Monday and concludes on Friday, is examining the extent to which population growth affects the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), globally agreed targets on reducing poverty and eliminating other social ills by 2015.

Although birth rates have been on the slide across the developing world since the 1970s, women in most of the least developed countries (LDCs) still have five children each on average, according to a policy brief presented by the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA).

The lack of access to family planning and to modern methods of contraception is the major cause of this persistence in high fertility.

“When individuals and couples are given the possibility of deciding how many children they want to have, they usually opt for much lower numbers than they used to,” Hania Zlotnik, Director of the Population Division, told the press at UN Headquarters in New York at a briefing focusing on the work of the Commission.

Ms. Zlotnik noted that giving people the information and means for reaching their reproductive goals – without any kind of interference or coercion – has significant implications for economic and social development.

Reducing population growth through cutting fertility rates, versus increasing mortality or restricting migration, is beneficial to the economy, as low fertility increases the number of people of working age per capita as well as output per capita, according to the Population Division brief.

Benefits to economic growth also occur as lowering fertility leads to an increase in the supply of female labour, particularly in urban areas in developing countries.

In addition, smaller family size allows for greater investment in the health and education of children in the longer term both from the family and government.

Source: United Nations

______________________________________________________________

Revised UN estimates put world population at over 9 billion by 2050

United Nations

11 March 2009 – The world’s population will hit 7 billion early in 2012 and top 9 billion in 2050, with the majority of the increase taking place in developing countries, according to revised United Nations estimates released today.

“There have been no big changes for the recent estimates and we have not changed the assumptions for the future,” Hania Zlotnik, Director of the Population Division at the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), told reporters in New York.

“We’re still projecting that by 2050 the population of the world will be around 9.1 billion,” she said, as she presented the 2008 Revision of the World Population Prospects.

The Revision also says that nine countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected increase from 2010 to 2050: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Tanzania, China and Bangladesh.

Ms. Zlotnik noted that current projections are based on the assumption that fertility is going to decline from the current global level of 2.5 children per woman to 2.1 children per woman from now until 2050.

The population of the 49 least developed countries (LDCs) is still the fastest growing in the world, at 2.3 per cent per year, according to a news release issued by the Population Division.

While the population of developing countries as a whole is projected to rise from 5.6 billion in 2009 to 7.9 billion in 2050, the population of more developed regions is expected to change minimally, passing from 1.23 billion to 1.28 billion.

The latter would have declined to 1.15 billion were it not for the projected net migration from developing to developed countries, which is expected to average 2.4 million persons annually from 2009 to 2050.

The UN adds that projected trends are contingent on fertility declines in developing countries. Without further reductions of fertility, the world population could increase by nearly twice as much as currently expected.

“It is going to be extremely important to continue funding and increasing the funding that has gone down for family planning because, if not, our projections on declining fertility are unlikely to be met,” Ms. Zlotnik stated.

She added that the projected population trends also depend on achieving a major increase in the proportion of AIDS patients who get anti-retroviral therapy to treat the disease and on the success of efforts to control the further spread of HIV.

Among the other findings, she noted that most developing countries are unlikely to meet the goal of reducing under-five mortality by two-thirds by 2015, one of eight globally agreed targets set out in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Source: United Nations

______________________________________________________________

Sex is main cause of population growth

Optimum Population Trust

March 26, 2009

Sex, not religious or cultural beliefs or the quest for economic security, is what increases family size and drives world population growth, according to one of the UK’s leading authorities on family planning.

Conventional economic wisdom, which says that couples in poorer societies actively plan to have large families to compensate for high child mortality, to provide labour, and to care for parents in their old age, is wrong, Professor John Guillebaud will tell a conference on sustainable population today (Thursday, March 26).

Economists overlook the fact that sexual intercourse is more frequent than the minimum needed for intentional conceptions, and that half of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Moreover, demand for contraception increases when it is available, irrespective of a society’s wealth or child survival rates.

“Having a large rather than a small family is less of a planned decision than an automatic outcome of human sexuality,” Prof. Guillebaud will say. “For a fertile couple, nothing is easier.”

Prof. Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health at University College, London, is one of a group of experts who will be discussing the scientific rationale for reducing population to environmentally sustainable levels at today’s conference, organised by the Optimum Population Trust.

Other speakers include: Tim Dyson, professor of demography at the London School of Economics; Prof. Andrew Watkinson, former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; Robin Maynard, campaigns director of the Soil Association; Prof. Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum; Jonathon Porritt, chair of the Sustainable Development Commission; Sara Parkin, founder-director of Forum for the Future and former co-chair of the Green Party; and Dr. Martin Desvaux, an ecological footprint specialist.

Many environmentalists argue that greener lifestyles, and reducing consumption, are the key to solving environmental challenges such as climate change. However, Dr. Desvaux will disclose details of research showing that even with an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, the UK will be able to sustain only 37 million people; a “zero-carbon” economy will support only 52 million people in 2050. This will make the UK “extremely vulnerable in an uncertain world”, he will argue. The UK’s population, currently 61 million, is projected to rise to 77 million by 2050.

Even if Britain’s population could be capped at 70 million, as suggested by the immigration minister, Phil Woolas, last year, there would still be up to 33 million too many people in the UK for long-term sustainability, according to Dr. Desvaux.

The conference will also hear that:

*The UK could face major problems because of its high population density and low agricultural self-sufficiency. To reduce London’s current “food footprint” of some 20 million hectares - 2 million more than the UK’s agricultural land area – to a globally sustainable “fair share”, Londoners would need to eat an estimated 70 per cent less meat.

*Despite the likelihood of a world population crash as a consequence of inaction on overpopulation, 21 European countries are trying to raise their birth rates.

Prof. Guillebaud will argue that in both rich and poor countries, “something active needs to be done to separate sex from conception - namely, contraception…The evidence is clear within a wide variety of settings that - despite no prior increase in per capita wealth or child survival or other presumed essentials - demand for contraception increases when it becomes available, accessible, and accompanied by correct information about its appropriateness and safety.”

Yet despite being long seen as synonymous with contraception, the oral contraceptive pill is not an ideal method. It has the wrong “default state” - conception occurs if an error is made in its use. Long-acting reversible contraceptives, such as implants or copper intrauterine devices (IUDs), are far more effective because, unlike the pill, they are “forgettable”: mistakes in use do not result in conception.

Prof. Guillebaud argues that LARCs are particularly valuable for young people, “whose track record for unwanted conceptions - due to failure to comply properly with pill-taking even where oral contraception is available - is high in all societies”. This is a crucial feature in reducing population growth, he adds, since nearly half the world’s population is under the age of 25.

The conference, Environmentally Sustainable Populations: The scientific case for population policy - and ways of achieving sustainability, is being held at the Royal Statistical Society.

NOTES

A synopsis of Prof. Guillebaud’s paper is appended to this release.
The UN estimates that over 200 million women worldwide lack access to effective contraception.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Contact Prof. John Guillebaud on 07779 180188 or telephone 07976 370221

For information about the conference, contact Julie Lewis, administrator, Optimum Population Trust, 07531 316564, admin@optimumpopulation.org

NOTES FOR EDITORS: The OPT, a think-tank and campaign group, was founded in 1991 by the late David Willey. Its main aims are to promote and co-ordinate research into criteria that will allow the sustainable or optimum population of a region to be determined. Its patrons include Sir Partha Dasgupta, Frank Ramsey professor of economics at Cambridge University; Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies, Stanford University; Jane Goodall, founder, the Jane Goodall Institute, UN Messenger of Peace; John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health, University College, London; Susan Hampshire, actor; Aubrey Manning, broadcaster and professor of natural history, Edinburgh University; Professor Norman Myers, visiting fellow, Green College, Oxford; Sara Parkin, founder director and trustee, Forum for the Future; Sir Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission; and Sir Crispin Tickell, director of the Policy Foresight Programme, James Martin Institute for Science and Civilisation, Oxford University

Scientific Solutions in Contraception

John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health, University College, London

Paper for: Environmentally Sustainable Populations: The scientific case for population policy - and ways of achieving sustainability, Optimum Population Trust conference, Royal Statistical Society, March 26, 2009.

It is often assumed that any quantitative concern for population must be intrinsically coercive. But why consider infringing human rights when around half of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned? Moreover, numerous countries as varied as Costa Rica, Iran, Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand halved their total fertility rates primarily through meeting women’s unmet fertility needs and choices. What features do such disparate “success story” countries have in common - and how might they be replicated?

Conventional economic wisdom says that couples in resource poor settings actively plan to have many children to compensate for high child mortality, to provide labour, and to care for parents as they age. Often with cultural and religious endorsement, those factors clearly enhance the post hoc acceptance of large families. But economists overlook the fact that, everywhere, potentially fertile intercourse is more frequent than the minimum needed for intentional conceptions.

Thus, having a large rather than a small family is less of a planned decision than an automatic outcome of human sexuality. For a fertile couple, nothing is easier. Whether in resource poor or rich settings, something active needs to be done to separate sex from conception—namely, contraception. Moreover access to contraception is often difficult. Barriers to women’s choice are created through lack of empowerment and abuse of their rights by husbands or other family members; or religious authorities and some governments (for example, the Philippines) and, regrettably, sometimes even contraceptive providers. Misinformation abounds: in Rwanda, for instance, rumours have spread that hormonal contraceptives cause permanent sterility and that condoms always have holes in them.

The evidence is clear within a wide variety of settings that—despite no prior increase in per capita wealth or child survival or other presumed essentials—demand for contraception increases when it becomes available, accessible, and accompanied by correct information about its appropriateness and safety; when barriers are removed; and when there is good publicity and marketing principles are applied. This is consistent with normal consumer behaviour.

In Iran, where the total fertility rate (”average family size”) declined from 5.5 to 2 (replacement level) in just 15 years, all couples must learn about family planning before marriage and contraception was endorsed by the edicts of religious leaders. The Population Media Centre uses serial radio dramas or “soaps”. Audiences learn from decisions that their favourite characters make—such as allowing wives to use contraception to achieve smaller and healthier families. In Rwanda, 57% of new attendees at family planning clinics named the radio drama “Rwanda’s Brighter Future” as their reason for attending.

Contraceptive technology – which methods are best?
For too long the very name ‘pill’ has been seen as synonymous with contraception. Yet the combined oral contraceptive pill is not an ideal method. It has the wrong “default state”, namely conception if an error is made in its use. And user-failure errors are very common, so that its failure rate in typical use is up to 10 times higher than its theoretical effectiveness.

A better model for most of us humans would be a long-acting yet fully reversible contraceptive: having the right “default state”, namely of contraception - regardless of what the user does or doesn’t do. Such a method – invariably some kind of insert or implant - requires a single decision when sexual activity starts, to “opt out” of fertility. (Note that in principle the method could be for use by either sex). After that, the user becomes free of all contraceptive responsibility. In a future utopian version there would be no side effects, nothing else to be done until the individual was ready to “opt in” to restored fertility. At that point a second voluntary action would reverse the method. Until then, the method would have that crucial virtue among contraceptives of total “forgettability”.

Over the past 100 years scientific research has already produced several such long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs): they are the copper intrauterine devices (IUDs) and an intrauterine system (IUS); injectables; and subcutaneous implants. While not achieving the contraceptive utopia just described, because of side effects - principally irregular bleeding - they do have that ideal default state. They have been established to have, in typical use, much higher continuation rates and effectiveness than pills - indeed the same effectiveness as female sterilization. But in settings where there is high infant mortality they are far more appropriate than sterilization, which is essentially irreversible and for too long has been the mainstay of many developing world programmes. Moreover, these LARCs are particularly valuable for young people, whose track record for unwanted conceptions –due to failure to comply properly with pill-taking even where oral contraception is available - is high in all societies. Given that close to half of the world’s population is under age 25, we can therefore add another crucial feature to those above that are shared by the successful countries: that they have offered to the majority of their citizens a good range of choice of contraceptives, including most or all of these long-acting methods.

Source: Optimum Population Trust