Planned Parenthood "Jaffe Memo": Compilation of

Elitist's Heinous Depopulation Ideas

The following documents have been combined to create this PDF:

(1) Planned Parenthood "Jaffe Memo" ORIGINAL FULL (11-MAR-1969):

Originating from the Center for Family Planning Program Development
(The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World
Population). This ‘memo’ is a synthesis of a number of ideas then in wide
circulation, both inside and outside of Planned Parenthood, and serves
as a useful illustration of a whole range of disconcerting policy
considerations. Planned Parenthood portrays itself as an advocate for
women’s rights and autonomy and sexual freedom, but this document
reveals an entirely different story.

(2) Planned Parenthood "Jaffe Memo" SINGLE PAGE SYNOPSIS —

Corrected & Reformatted [See Page 9]:
PROPOSED MEASURES TO REDUCE FERTILITY, BY UNIVERSALITY OR
SELECTIVITY OF IMPACT IN THE U.S.
This single chart conveys the lengths that elitists are willing to go to
‘manage’ the U.S. Population.

(3) Berelson’s Response to Jaffe, BEYOND FAMILY PLANNING:

THE POPULATION COUNCIL
245 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017
"The Population Council is a foundation established in 1952 for scientific
training and study in population matters. It endeavors to advance
knowledge in the broad field of population by fostering research, training,
and technical consultation and assistance in the social and bio-medical
sciences."
* John D. Rockefeller 3rd, Chairman of the Board
* Bernard Berelson, President

(4) U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the

Literature:
Robin Elliott, Lynn C. Landman, Richard Lincoln and Theodore Tsuoroka
Family Planning Perspectives
Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. i-xvi (16 pages)
Published By: Guttmacher Institute
This paper reviews various proposals made for dealing with “‘the
population problem” beyond the current efforts of national programs of
voluntary family planning. It was written by Bernard Berelson of The
Population Council.
 PROPOSED MEASURES TO REDUCE FERTILITY, BY UNIVERSALITY OR SELECTIVITY OF IMPACT IN THE U.S.
UNIVERSAL IMPACT SELECTIVE IMPACT DEPENDING ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS Measures Predicated on Existing
Motivation to Prevent Unwanted
Social Constraints Economic Deterrents/Incentives Social Controls Pregnancy
Restructure family: Modify tax policies: Compulsory abortion of out- Payments to encourage sterilization
a) Postpone or avoid a) Substantial marriage tax of-wedlock pregnancies
Payments to encourage
marriage b) Child Tax
Compulsory sterilization of contraception
b) Alter image of ideal c) Tax married more than single
all who have two children
family size d) Remove parents’ tax exemption Payments to encourage abortion
except for a few who would
d) Additional taxes on parents with more than
Compulsory education of be allowed three
1 or 2 children in school Abortion and sterilization on
children
Confine childbearing to only demand
Reduce/eliminate paid maternity leave or
Encourage increased a limited number of adults
benefits Allow harmless contraceptives to
homosexuality
Stock certificate type be distributed nonmedically
Reduce/eliminate children's or family
Educate for family permits for children
allowances Improve contraceptive technology
limitation
Housing Policies:
Bonuses for delayed marriage and greater child-
Fertility control agents in Make contraception truly available
spacing a) Discouragement of
water supply and accessible
private home
Pensions for women of 45 with less than N
Encourage women to work ownership Improve maternal health care, with
children
b) Stop awarding public family planning a core element
Eliminate Welfare payments after first 2 children housing based on
family size
Chronic Depression
Require women to work and provide few child
care facilities
Limit/eliminate publicly-financed medical care,
scholarships, housing, loans and subsidies to
families with more than N children.
The measures tabulated here are derived primarily from Davis, Science. 11/10/67; Michael Young’s remarks at NIH Conference 6/67; L. & A.
Day, Too Many Americans; J. Blake in Sheps & Ridley, Public Health & Population Change; and W. Shockley, Speech in Ontario, 12/67.
Source: Memorandum sent to Bernard Berelson by Frederick S. Jaffe, of the Center for Family Planning Program Development (The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population), with the
subject: “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the United States” “responsive to [Berelson’s letter of Jan. 24], seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to formation of population policy”.
Dated: March 11, 1969.

Reproduced from the original by Dr. Anthony Horvath, Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries, in September, 2015. www.athanatosministries.org For even more background, visit jaffememo.com.
U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature
Author(s): Robin Elliott, Lynn C. Landman, Richard Lincoln and Theodore Tsuoroka
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. i-xvi
Published by: Guttmacher Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2133834 .
Accessed: 01/02/2013 00:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Guttmacher Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Family Planning
Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
U.S. PopulationGrowthand FamilyPlanning:
A Reviewof the Literature

ByRobinElliott,LynnC. Landman,RichardLincolnand
TheodoreTsuoroka

U.S. populationgrowthhas recentlyemergedas a prominent Anotherargument relatesU.S. populationgrowthto dwin-

nationalconcern. Yet20 oreven10 yearsago,whengrowth rates dlingworldresources, particularly to non-replaceable minerals
werehigherthantheyare today,interest in theissuewas negli- and fuels.This country, withsome six percentof the world's
gible.Duringthe 1930s,in fact,preoccupation was ratherwith populationin 1966,consumed34 percentof theworld'senergy
a potentialdeclinein theU.S. population. What,tllen,explains production, 29 percentofall steelproduction, and 17 percentof
thetoneofthecurrent debate? all thetimbercut.4Suchfigures lead to thereasoning thateach
The interest maybe tracedto two generalareasof concern: Americanbirthcontributes farmoreto the drainon worldre-
populationpressures worldwide, and urbanand environmentalservesthandoes,say,an Indianbirth- by morethan25 times,
deterioration athome. suggestsbiologistWayneDavis.5The problembecomesmore
apparentas the UnitedStatesbecomesincreasingly dependent
WorldPopulation andResources foritscontinued industrial growth upontheresources ofthede-
velopingworld.Sincethe 1930s,the U.S. has shiftedfromthe
RecentU.N. estimatesof the size of the worldpopulationin positionof a netexporter ofmineralsto thatof a netimporter,
theyear2000 rangefrom5.5 to 7.0 billionpersons,up to twice withheaviestrelianceonoutsidesourcesfor
suchbasicresources
its presentsize.' Presentratesadd to our populationsome70 as crudeoil,ironore,copper,lead and
zinc.6Meanwhile,some
millionpersonseach year,or anotherNew YorkCityeverysix geologists claim,seriousshortagesamongcertainmineralsare
weeks.Impliedin theseprojections is thatpopulationgrowth developing. To quotetheCommittee on Resourcesand Man of
continuing at presentrateswillconflict, perhapscritically, with theNationalAcademyofSciences:
thepossibilities formodernization amongthedeveloping nations,
andwillinthelongrunthreaten theecologyoftheentireworld. Trueshortages existorthreaten formanysubstances that
According todemographer NathanKeyfitz: are considered essential for current industrialsociety:
mercury, tin,tungsten and helium,forexample.Known
Ifcurrent ratesofpopulation increasedo notabate,world and now-prospective reserves ofthesesubstances willbe
populationin 2050 could approach18 billionpeople- nearlyexhausted bytheendofthiscentury orearlyinthe
well overhalfthe numberthe worldcan everhope to next.. .7
sustain,evenat a levelofchronicnear-starvation forall.2 Somescientists claimthatAmerican demandonforeign sources
Thesegrimstatistics havebeenappliedtotheAmerican scenein of supplywilldepleteresourceswhichmightotherwise be left
a numberofways.It is suggested, forexample,thattheUnited availableforindustrial development and modernization in those
Statesshouldput itsown 'populationhouse'in orderif it is to countries at a futuredate,8and thatin the longerrunthe de-
maintaininternational goodwillas it lends active supportto velopednationsthemselves mayfindtheirinternal and external
populationcontrolin the developingcountries.U.S. growth sourcesofsupplydrying up. In thissense,themoveto curbU.S.
maybe modestin relationto ratesin mostdevelopingcountries aggregate demandforprimary products through population con-
(lessthanonepercentannually, comparedwitha worldaverage trolmaybe seen as thefirst line of defenseagainstanticipated
ofmorethantwopercent), butnonetheless U.S. populationmay resource shortages, thealleviation ofwhichmightotherwise have
doublein70 yearsevenas policiesofcontrol arebeingsponsored to be soughtthrough restrictions on risingstandardsof living.
abroad.Thus,ecologist Paul Ehrlichwrites: Nutritionist JeanMayerwrites:
Forus to succeedinpersuading otherpeopleto decrease The earth'sstreams,woodsand animalscan accommo-
theirbirthrateswe mustbe able to advocate"do as we datethemselves betterto a risingpoorpopulation thanto
aredoing,"not"do as we say."3 a risingrichpopulation.Indeed,to save theecologythe
population willhavetodecreaseas thedisposableincome
Robin Elliottis Coordinatorof PopulationActivitiesand Theodore Tsuo- increases.9
roka is ProgramPlanningAnalystof Planned Parenthood-World Popula-
tion.RichardLincolnis Editorand LynnC. Landmanis AssociateEditorof Ben Wattenberg takesissue withthispositionin a recent
Family Planning Perspectives.The report was prepared in behalf of article. What,he asks,is Dr. Mayer'sprescription?
Planned Parenthood'sPopulation Education StaffCommitteeas a basis
fordiscussionof and actionon theU.S. populationproblemby thePlanned Is he againstaffluent
peoplehavingbabiesbut notpoor
Parenthoodnationalorganization. people,eventhoughtheaffluenthaverelatively
fewany-
ii

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 way?Or perhapsis it thathe is justagainsttheidea of thepolluterwillbe compelledto investin cleansingde-
lettinganymorepoorpeoplebecomeaffluent people,be- vicesrequiredto returnthewaterto usablecondition.16
causetheytoowillthenconsumetoomanyresources and
causemorepollution?10 The linkis drawnby a numberof ecologistsand otherbio-
scientists betweenthe"ecocatastrophe" (Paul Ehrlich'sdescrip-
Economist RobertHeilbroner, whosupports theMayer-Ehrlichtion17)of environmental pollutionand the size of population.
position, drawsfromtheiranalysestheconclusion that: WritesLamontC. Cole:
. . . the underdevelopedcountriescan never hope to . . . thereis nowayforus tosurviveexcepttohaltpopula-
achieveparitywith'thedevelopedcountries. Givenour tiongrowthcompletely or even to undergoa periodof
presentand prospective technology,therearesimplynot populationdecreaseif,as I anticipate, definitivestudies
enoughresources topermita "Western" rateofindustrial showourpopulation tobe alreadybeyondwhattheearth
exploitation tobe expandedtoa population offourbillion cansupport ona continuous basis.Justas we mustcontrol
- muchlesseightbillion- persons."
our interference withthe chemicalcyclesthatprovide
Some writers, notablyFrankNotestein, JosephFisher12 and theatmosphere withitsoxygen, carbonand nitrogen, so
HaroldJ.Barnett, have takenissuewiththosewho claimthat must we control ourbirthrate.18
we facea shortageofnaturalresources. Said Dr. Notesteinbe- EcologistBarryCommonersharesthe concernof his col-
forethePopulation Association ofAmericainApril1970: leagueswiththeenvironmental crisis,butsaysthattheproblem
Thanks,indeed,to the highconsumption of the devel- is notprimarily populationgrowth, but the failureof political
oped world,we have generated theknowledge and tech- institutions to assertcontrolover the use of technology. He
niquesthathavegreatly expandedboththesuppliesand writes:
thereserves of. . . rawmaterials intheworld.13
Myownestimate is thatwe areunlikely to avoidenviron-
AndDr. Barnett concludes: mentalcatastrophe by the 1980s unlesswe are able by
thattimeto correctthefundamental incompatibilitiesof
Natural resource scarcity and diminishingreturns majortechnologies withthe demandof the ecosystem.
through timearenota cursethatsocietymustbear.14 Thismeansthatwe willneedtoputintooperation essen-
He pointsto technological development as "thedynamicfactor tiallyemissionless versions ofautomotive vehicles,power
in the decliningcost trendforagricultural and mineralcom- plants,refineries, steelmillsand chemicalplants.Agri-
modities." culturaltechnology willneed to findwaysof sustaining
productivity withoutbreakingdown the naturalsoil
cycle,ordisrupting thenaturalcontrolofdestructive in-
DomesticUrbanand Environmental Problems sects. Sewage and garbage treatment plantswill need to
OftenAttributed to PopulationGrowthRate be designedto return organicwasteto thesoilwhere,in
nature,it belongs.Vegetation willneed to be massively
In largepartthecurrent concernwithU.S. populationgrowth reintroduced intourbanareas.Housingand urbansani-
maybe tracedto domesticissuessuchas environmental decay, taryfacilities willneedtobe drastically improved. In my
urbanblight,urbanviolence,crowdedhighwaysand parksand view,unlesstheseactionsare taken,in the 1980slarge-
hightaxlevels.The literature aboundswiththeorieswhichas- scale environmental disastersare likelyto occur,at least
sumeor attemptto establisha relationship betweenour social in the highly developed regions oftheworld.19
maladiesand our increasein numbers.Amongthe problems Amongtheimagesmostfrequently usedby thosewhowould
whichone findsattributed in partor in whole to the size or call attentionto the U.S. populationproblemis crowding -
growth rateofourpopulationare disruption oftheecology,the crowding ofpeoplein citiesand ofcarson highways, restricting
socio-psychological stressesof urban society,and economic freedom ofmovement and reducingeach person'senjoyment of
strains, especiallyhightaxes. scarceland resourcessuchas beachesand nationalparks.It is
JohnD. Chapmandefinestheecologistas one who "sees the suggestedthatcrowdingcreatesstrainsand stressesforthein-
naturalworldas a seriesof inter-related systemsin a stateof dividualwhichall toofrequently areexpressed in disruptionand
dynamicequilibrium intowhichMan intrudes as an unbalancing violenceforthegroup.Studiesofanimalbehavior(forexample,
factor."'5The pollutionofwaterand airwithindustrial wastes, thoseofratsconducted byJohnB. CalhounofNIMH20)arecited
chemicalfertilizers and gasolinefumesgivesrisetochemicaland as evidenceof the debilitating effectcrowdingcan have upon
thermal changesinthebiosystem whichdeliverimmediate injury socialandsexualrelationships. WritesDr. Keyfitz:
totheenvironment and,in addition, setoffa chainofdistortions
in thepatternof plantand animallifethroughout the system. Food riotsoccurin Bombay,and civilriotsin Newark,
Such imbalances,ironically, are a directoutgrowth of Man's Memphis,and even Washington, D.C. This ultimate
manifestation of populationdensity,whichcolorsthe
capacityto manipulatehis environment, and are mostwide- socialhistory ofall continents, is a challengethatcan no
spreadand seriousin countries whichare technologically most longerbe deferred. It willnotceaseuntilpopulation con-
advanced.Underpresentconditions, a highGrossNationalProd- trolis a fact.21
uct tendsto producepollution,and thisin turn,ironically, is
likelyto add further to the GNP. Writeseconomichistorian Suggestingin a recentarticlethat "spirallingpopulation
RobertLekachman: growth" is responsible for"manyof our tensionsand failures,"
Representative MorrisUdallgivessomeexamples:
If a new pulp mill dischargeschemicalwastesinto a
hitherto cleanstream,theGNP willgo up, notonlybe- The numbersof people jammed into our large cities are
cause of the mill'svaluable outputbut because other increasinglyominous. Crime rates soar. Freeways and
enterprises and municipalities locateddownstream from airportsare overloaded with traffic. Some schools are in

iii

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 doublesessions.Thereis poverty,
racialstrife,
therotting are no worsein thosecountriesthanhere.... We must
of our centralcities,the formlessand ugly sprawlof attackthe problemsof pollution,urban deterioration,
urbanization.22 juveniledelinquency and thelikedirectly,
and ifsensible
programsare evolved,continuedpopulationgrowthin
Somewriters believethatsuch strainson our societyspring the orderof one-percent annuallywould not make the
notfromhowmuchpopulationis growing, butfromthewayin programs tangiblylesseffective.
whichitis distributed.
JamesSundquistoftheBrookings Institu-
tion,forexample,calls fora nationalpolicyof populationre-
distribution: EconomicCosts
... [to] encouragean acceleratedrateof growthin the Most economistsno longerbelievethatsubstantial
population
smallernaturaleconomiccentersof the country's less growthis essentialto confident
investment
activityand rising
denselypopulatedregions,as the alternativeto further per capita income.27'28
On the contrary,population growthtends
concentrationsof populationin the largermetropolitan to retardeconomicgrowthin all but a veryfew countriesin
areas.23
specialcircumstances (such as Australia).Dr. Coale statesthe
In a similarveinare recentstatements by HermanMiller,Chief argument simply:
ofthePopulationDivisionof the U.S. Bureauof the Census,24
In the shortrun,not onlydoes a populationwithre-
and the Reportof PresidentNixon'sNationalGoals Research ducedfertility enjoythebenefitof dividingthenational
Staff.25 SaysMiller: productamonga smallernumberofconsumers; it enjoys
We haveseriouspopulation problems todayand theyare theadditional benefits ofhavinga largernationalproduct
likelytointensify inthenext15 years.Theseproblems re- todivide.29
late to the geographicdistribution and to thevalues of For the UnitedStatesspecifically, economistStephenEnke
our people ratherthan to theirnumbersand ratesof argues:
growth.
. . . an evergrowing populationis noteconomically desir-
TheWhiteHousegroupconcludesas follows: able. . . in fact,per capita incomeswill be higherthe
. . . onedecisionwhichappearsnottobe urgentis thatof soonera stationary andstablepopulation is attained.30
overallsizeofthepopulation- evenaftertheeffects ofa According to Dr. Enke,theU.S. economywouldbenefit from
considerableamountof immigration are takenintoac- a reducedorzerorateofpopulation growth in twoways:
count.The issueofpopulationdistribution is a different * In the shortrun,it would decreasethe numberof young
matter, and one to be takenseriously regardless ofwhat
maybe theupperlimitofpopulation dependents, thereby reducingprivateand public (i.e., tax)ex-
size.
penditures foreducation, training, subsistence and othersupport
AnsleyCoale,DirectorofPrinceton University'sOfficeofPopu- forthedependent population.
lationResearch,agreesand takesissuewithwhathe sees as the * In thelongerrun,itwouldincreasecapital/labor ratios(and
simplistic linktoo oftendrawnbetweenpopulationgrowthand henceproductivity), as the smallercohortsbeginto enterthe
ecologicaldisruption andurbanstress.He writes: laborforce.
. . . it has becomefashionable EconomistAlanSweezyadds anotherdimension to theargu-
to blamealmosteveryna-
tionalfailureorshortcoming on rapidpopulationgrowth ment, suggesting that some ofthe more undesirable concomitants
- theugliness andhopelessness ofslumlife,wasteful and ofeconomicgrowth(e.g., pollutionand congestion)are caused
irritating traffic
jams, unemployment and delinquency more by the population-increase componentthantheyare by
amongthedisturbingly largefraction ofadolescents who economicdevelopment per se. He drawsa distinction between
dropoutofschool,thepollution ofairand waterand the two kindsof economicdevelopment:risingper capita income
disappearanceof thenaturalbeautyof our country be- under conditionsof constantpopulation,and stationary per
hind a curtainof billboardsand under a blanketof capita incomeunderconditionsof increasingpopulation.He
Kleenexandbeercans....26 writes:
He decriesattempts to "blame"populationgrowth fortheseills: The largerthepopulation component in growth, themore
Fertility intheurbanghettoes willfallifdiscriminationis increasedoutputwill take the formof necessitiesand
alleviated,ifeducationaland employment opportunities long-established comforts of life. The moreincreased
areequalized.... Pollution is causedbyinternal combus- output takesthe form ofnecessities, theharderit willbe
tionenginesas operatedat presentand by the unre- to gainconsideration forecological,aestheticand recrea-
stricteddischargeof noxiousfumesfromothersources tionalvaluesiftheystandin theway ofexpandingpro-
intotheatmosphere. Similarly,waterpollutionis caused duction.31
bythedischarge ofnoxiouseffluents intorivers,lakesand
oceans.A populationhalfor three-quarters the current
one in the U.S. could ruinthe potabilityof our fresh U.S. PopulationGoals
watersuppliesand poisonour atmosphere by the unre- Whatare thegoalsof thosewho call attention to a 'population
stricted dischargeofwaste.... In fact,mostofthesocial
andeconomicproblems problem' in the United States? Is there an optimum population
ascribedto ourexcessivepopula-
tionin the U.S. or to its excessiverate of growthare or an optimumgrowthrateon whichmostcommentators are
affected moreby how ourpopulationhas chosento dis- agreed,or is the objectivemoregenerallyto 'slow down' the
tributeitselfthanby itssize.... The densityofpopula- current rateof growth? What are the demographic constraints
tionis muchhigherin France,theUnitedKingdomand upon achievinga givenrate of growth(e.g., the relationshipbe-
Netherlands. Yet pollution,traffcjams and delinquency tween currentfertility rates and futuregrowthrates) and what

iv

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 distribution?
growth... orofpopulation
UrbanCrowding:Problemofpopulation

arethedemographic implications(e.g.,age structure)

ofa popu- currentand projected growthrates. Writes sociologistWilliam
lationofgivensizeorgrowth rate? Petersen:
One pointat leastis clear:thenecessityfortheeventualces-
One is on firmerground to contend . . . not that the
sationofpopulationgrowth worldwide. As Dr. Coale observes: United States is overpopulated,but that its population
A long-rangeaveragegrowth ofzerowillbe theinevitable growthhas been, and probablywill remain,so greatthat
consequenceof inevitablelimits- on the one hand, the disadvantages consequent fromit will become in-
standing
roomonly,andontheother, extinction.32 creasinglyevident.36

The relevantquestion,then,is notif the U.S. and otherna- It is this theme- reductionin the U.S. population growth
tionsshouldat sometimeactivelysupporta reducedrate of rate,ratherthan establishmentof an optimumsize - whichhas
growth,butwhen,howandat whatcostthisreducedrateshould been mostprominentin thediscussionofpopulationgoals.
be achieved.The questionhas givenrisetospeculationsas tothe
'optimum population'fortheUnitedStates. Reducing the GrowthRate
The conceptof optimum populationimpliestheexistenceof Of thosecommentators who believe thatthe presentU.S. popu-
independent criteria(e.g., wealth,livingspace,per capitain- lation growthrate is too high,some would have it reduced to a
come,qualityof life)uponwhichthejudgment maybe based. fractionof the presentrate,while otherswould strivefora zero
In theory,
the'optimum' maybe definedfora givensocietyat a or even negative rate. David Lilienthal,for example, calls for
givenstageoftechnological development, and willchangeover "a slowerrisein thesize ofourpopulationratherthanthepresent
time.In practice,however, theconceptappearselusive.Writes steep increase,"37while William H. Draper would have "the
demographer LincolnDay: UnitedStatesconsiderand thenaccept a zero growthrateas our
So faras optimum size is concerned ... thedependence nationaloptimumgoal here."38Dr. Lee DuBridge, whilehe was
of humanwell-being on the interplay of manydiverse PresidentNixon's science advisor,urged "everyhuman institu-
elements permitsus to setonlyverybroadlimits.Recog- tion- school,university, church,family,governmentand inter-
nitionofthefortofecological,resourceand sociallimits nationalagency [to set reductionof our populationgrowthrate
setsthe maximum numberof people who can be sup- to zero] as itsprimetask."39
portedandthereby narrows therange;butthereremains, Part of the reason forthis sense of urgencyrestsin a simple
nevertheless,a considerable latitudewithinwhichthe demographictheorem:thata zero growthrate would be two or
optimum sizecanbe located.33
threegenerationsdistanteven if fertility were reduced now to
Whilemostwriters haveshiedawayfromassigning a specific the level of the replacement.If this rate were achieved today,
valueto optimum population, a fewhave claimedthatpresent accordingto estimatespreparedby Tomas Frejka,40a stationary
populationsize exceedsit. Dr. Day, forexample,holdsthatit populationwould not be reached until60 or 70 yearsfromnow
wouldhave been "better"if the U.S. populationhad stopped - the period of time required forthe population age structure
growingat 150 millionpersons,and thatsuch an "optimum" to assume a stationarypattern.Dr. Frejka warnsthatto achieve
population wouldafford theindividual "serenity, dignity,order, zero populationgrowthimmediately,it would be necessaryfor
leisure,peace,beauty,elbowroom. . . necessary to thecultiva- each familyto limititselfto one childonlyforthenext20 yearsor
tionofthewholeperson."WayneDavis believesthat"we have so, with two-childfamiliesnot permissibleuntil afterthe year
farmorepeoplenowthanwe cancontinue tosupportatanything 2000. As Dr. Coale pointsout,thiswould so skew the age struc-
neartoday'slevelofaffluence."34 Referring to worldpopulation, ture of the populationas to disruptthe normalworkingsof the
theCommittee on Resourcesand Man suggeststhat"A human society.
populationless thanthepresentone wouldoffer thebesthope Similarconclusionsto thoseof Dr. Frejka have been reached
forcomfortablelivingforour descendants...."35 by economistStephen Enke; by his estimates,"the population
The inherent problem ofdefinition intheconceptof'optimum ceilingforthiscountrymay be no lower than about 350 million
population'has limiteditsusefulness in thediscussion ofpopu- and achievedno soonerthanabout 2065 A.D."'4
lationgoals and policy.More usefulhas been the notionof Census Bureau projectionspublished in 1967 assume that

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
by the year2000 completedfamilysize of Americanswould have not yet reachedcrisislevels favorbuildingon existing
rangefroma highof 3.35 childrento a low of 2.45 children, motivation. For mostof the measuresproposed,predictions of
whichwouldgivetheU.S. a populationoffrom280 to 356 mil- successremainuntriedand speculative.
lion.Since1966,theseprojections (mostlypopularly, the"low" The alternative approaches tothepopulation problemarealike
300 millionprojection) haveformedthebasisuponwhichmost in one respect:theyare directedexclusively towardsreducing
writers haveestimated theseriousness oftheproblem.In August fertility, withtheassumption implicitthatanypolicygearedto
1970,however,theCensusBureaureleaseda revisedand con- increasemortality, theseconddeterminant ofpopulation growth,
siderablylowerrangeof populationprojections. Explainingthe would be clearlyunacceptable.The thirddeterminant, net
revision, theBureaucommented thatonlythelowestofthe1967 immigration, is rarelysuggestedas a target,'thoughit con-
projections(Series D) conformed withactual experiencesof tributesan increasing portion(currently, about20 percent)of
thesucceedingthreeyears.42 Thehighestseriesundertheearlier theannualgrowth rate.
forecast(SeriesA,basedontheassumption ofcompleted fertility
at 3.35 childrenper woman)was dropped,and a new "low"
series(SeriesE, based on theassumption ofcompletedfertilityThe FamilyPlanningExperience
at replacement, or 2.11 childrenper woman)was added. With The widespreadadoptionbynationsofpoliciesand programs of
theseassumptions, theestimatedsize of theU.S. populationin fertility controlis a phenomenon primarily of thepast decade.
theyear2000 rangesfrom266 millionsto 321 millions. Demo- Even voluntary familyplanningprograms werenotconsidered
grapher DonaldBoguecomments ontheshiftinexpectations: seriouslyas a meanstolowerfertility ratesuntilthe1960swhen
Populationgrowth is no longera majorsocialproblemin thedevelopment of theoralcontraceptive and theintrauterine
theUnitedStates.... The eraofzeropopulationgrowth device (IUD) broughtnew hope thatunwantedfertility could
is nearlyuponus.. .. Thisis a verydifferent picturefrom be eliminated through widedissemination ofthesehighlyeffec-
thatwhichpresented itselfonlya fewyearsago [when] tive,relatively simpleand inexpensive methods.
it lookedas if the U.S. was headingintoa verysevere The firstfewyearsof experiencewithfamilyplanningpro-
populationcrisis.It now appearsthatwe have resolved gramsin someAsiancountries(notablyTaiwanand Korea,and
it.43
based mainlyon the IUD) engenderedconsiderableoptimism
AndDr. Notestein states: aboutthepossibility of significantly reducingbirthrates. Frank
Notestein,47 forexample,predictedin 1967 that population
It is notat all beyondbeliefthat,withcontraceptives of growth ratesin developingcountries wouldbe reducedto 1-1.5
everincreasing efficiency andlegalabortion, fertility
may
fallbelowreplacement level.44 percentby the end of the century - a level sufficientlylow to
enablethesecountries to achievenecessarymodernization. He
(He adds,however, "andofcourseitmaynot.") basedhisoptimism onfourfactors:
The ultimateage composition in a stationarypopulationhas * development ofnationalpoliciesfavoring familyplanning,
forsomewriters raisedquestionsas toitsdesirability. Dr. Coale, * demonstrated public interestin limiting childbearing,
forexample,notes: * improvement ofcontraceptive technology, and
* reduction of thebirthratein severalOrientalcountries as
. . . a stationary population withan expectation oflifeof theresultofgovernment birthcontrol programs (Korea,Taiwan,
70 wouldhaveas manypeopleover60 yearsas under15. HongKong,Singapore).
The medianage wouldbe about35.45 He concludes:
He suggeststhatundersuchconditions peoplemightbe more Whatever happens,itis probablethat,shortofa majorrise
conservative and less receptiveto change.Advancement in au- in thedeathrate,populationgrowth willnotbe stopped
thority forthe aspiringyoungpersonwouldbe moredifficult, forsomedecades.Giventhenecessary effort, however, it
moreover, sincetherewouldbe as manypeopleaged 50 yearsas does seemlikelythatgrowthwill be reducedto levels
therewouldbe aged 20. Dr. Day doesnotsee thisas a problem, thatcan be copedwithin a worldofrapidlydeveloping
and pointsoutthattheage structure of a stationarypopulation scienceandtechnology. In thelongrun,ofcourse,growth
in theUnitedStateswouldbe similarto thatof contemporary muststop.Quitepossibly, it willnotdo so evenifevery
SwedenandBritain. coupleis abletolimititschildbearing totheprecisenum-
berofchildren itwants.Buta worldin whichall couples
areable tochoosethesize oftheirfamily willbe a world
in whichan alteration of institutionalconstraints would
Alternative Approachesto CheckingPopulationGrowth proveratherquicklyeffective.
EmphasizeVoluntary Practicesor Governmental Coercion
A monthafterthe appearanceof Dr. Notestein's 'optimistic'
Alternative strategiesrecommended by thosewhoseeka reduc- projections, Kingsley Davis publisheda majorcritiqueoffamily
tionin U.S. populationgrowthrange fromvoluntary family planningas a meansto populationcontrol.48 Davis insistedthat
planningpracticesto coercivegovernmental action.The pattern if familyplanningwere to remainthe onlymeanstakenby
of policychoicescorresponds ratherclosely,as mightbe ex- governments to reducefertility, the rateof populationgrowth
pected,tothesenseofurgency withwhicheachwriter viewsthe wouldcontinueat an unacceptablelevel,bothin industrial and
'population problem.' Thosewhosee ecologicalcrisisnearlyupon in developingcountries:
us tend to favormore draconianmeasures,such as putting
sterilants in thewatersupply,whilethosewhoconsiderthatwe Zero populationgrowth[is] the ultimategoal,because
any growthrate,if continued,will eventuallyuse up the
*
One of the few who call for a net immigration
rate of zero is Stephen earth . .. at most,familyplanning can reduce reproduc-
Enke,himselfan advocateofzero populationgrowth.4' tion to the extentthat unwanted birthsexceed wanted

vi

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
U. S. Population and BirthRate, 1800-1970 and "High" and "Low" Projections for 1970-1990

BirthsperThousand _ Projected"High" BirthRate * Projected"Low" PopulationGrowthRate *****

Populationin Millions **.g Projected"Low" BirthRate _ Projected"High" PopulationGrowthRate * --
400 55

350 ___ - - 0
Population in Births per
Millions Thousand
300 4__ - - 5

250 _____40

200 35____

150 3;1___0

100 2

50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _20

0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1970 1980 1990
Source: 1970-1990 ProjectionsfromCurrentPopulation Reports,Series P-25, No. 448, 1970.

ofunwanted
births.... The elimination birthswouldstill mentation thatmakestheemphasison familyplanninga major
leavean extremely highrateofmultiplication. control."52
obstacletopopulation
Two years followingthe publication of the Notestein and
he declared:
article,
In another
Davis articles,BernardBerelsonof the Population Council com-
Mill:onsofdollarsarebeingspentonthefalseassumption piled an analysisof the various mechanismsproposed forpopu-
thatpopulationcontrolcan be achievedby familyplan- lationcontrol.53Taking as his startingpointvoluntarycontracep-
ningprograms ... couplescan findthemeansto reduce tion (familyplanning), which in additionto its primarymission
if theywantto do so, withoutanyfamily
theirfertility as a socio-medicalserviceto individualsand familiesis currently
planningprogramsto help them....49 the only accepted method of population controlin the United
Dr. Davis, likemostsubsequentcritics,definedfamilyplan- States,Berelsonexamined29 alternativepolicies which govern-
ningas a euphemism forthe distribution de- mentswere being urged to take beyond,or in additionto, family
of contraceptive
vices,and chargedfamilyplannerswithrejectingsuch"volun- planning.While the scope of Dr. Berelson'sreviewis worldwide,
tary"birthcontrolmeasuresas legalizationand encouragementthe examples he quotes are all relevantto the debate over U.S.
of abortionand sterilizationand "unnaturalformsof sexual populationpolicy.His proposalsare arrangedaccordingto eight
intercourse."* categories,paraphrasedbelow:
He also accuses familyplannersof neglectingproblemsof * Extensions Control.Institutionaliza-
Fertility
of Voluntary
motivation and of beingconcernedonlywiththe numbersof tionofmaternalcare services,54 promo-
legalizationof abortion,55
womenwho acceptedcontraceptive devices."Overlooked," he tionof voluntarysterilization.
says,"is thefactthata desirefortheavailability of contracep- * Establishment Control.Additionof
Fertility
of Involuntary
tivesis compatiblewithhighfertility."He also insists"thatthe temporarysterilantsto the water supply;56"child licenses,"57and
socialstructure and economymustbe changedbeforea delib- "child certificates";58compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock
eratereduction inthebirthratecanbe achieved.As itis,reliance pregnancies;59compulsorysterilizationof men with three or
onfamily planningallowspeopletofeelthat'something is being morechildren.60
doneaboutthepopulation problem'without theneedforpainful population
EducationalCampaigns.Introducing
* Intensified
socialchanges."It represents "an escape fromthereal issues,"
in thatno country has taken"thenextstep"towardpopulation has played a centralrole in the Indian familyplanning
* Male sterilization

program,femalesterilization in the PuertoRican program,and therapeutic

control, and in that"supportand encouragement ofresearchon abortionin the Japaneseprogram.The literaturedoes not indicate "un-
populationpolicy[otherthanfamilyplanning]"is negligible. naturalformsof sexual intercourse"as an officialcomponentof a govern-
It is preciselythisblockingof alternativethinkingand experi- ment-sponsored familyplanningprogram.50'15

vii

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Somesee government
coerciontheonlyanswertopopulationcontrol.

and familyplanningmaterialin the schools;6'use of national Dr. Berelson'spaperprovidesa usefulbasisfordiscussionof

satelliteTV.62 themechanisms proposedforpopulationcontrol, whichare ar-
* IncentivePrograms.Providingdirectpaymentsfordelay- rangedbelow in two categories:thosewhichaim to change
ingpregnancy,63 forbeingsterilized,64
foracceptingcontracep- fertilitypreferences and, if thatfails,to resortto moredirect
tion.65 meansofinfluencing familysize (e.g., theDavis position),and
* Tax and WelfareBenefitsand Penalties.For example,sub- thosewhichare predicatedon existingmotivation to prevent
stituting
an anti-natalist
system ofsocialselvicesfortheexisting unwantedpregnancy(e.g., the Notesteinposition).
pronatalistsystem,by withdrawing maternity benefitsor child
and familyallowancesafterNthchild,66 or by limiting
govern- 'Direct'and 'Indirect'Means ofAlteringFertility Behavior
menthousing, scholarshipsandloansto familieswithfewerthan Based on OverallSocial Needs
N children;67tax on births;68reversal of tax benefitsto favor
singleand childlesspersons,and thosehavingless thanN chil- Measuresofthistypearepredicatedon thebeliefthatadequate
dren;69provisionby State of N yearsfreeschoolingto each fertility reduction willdependuponchangesin themotivations
nuclearfamily, to be allocatedby familyas desired;70 pensions upon which (orin thefreedom withwhich)peopleconceiveand
forpoorparentswithfewerthanN children.7' bearchildren. The criticalpointhereis thatcurrent motivations
* Shiftsin Socialand EconomicInstitutions. Forexample,in- andfreedoms relatetoindividualpreferences,andthatthesemay
creasingminimum age ofmarriage;72 promotion or requirement bear no relationto overallsocial needs. To quote Garrett
of femaleparticipation in laborforce;73selectiverestructuringHardin:85
of familyin relationto the restof society;74promotion of two The sumtotalofpersonalchoices about familysize on the
typesofmarriage, one childlessand theotherlicensedforchil- partof individualcouples actingin theirown self-interest
dren;75encouragement of long-range social trendsleadingto- may verywell add up to ruinousdemographicconditions
wardlowerfertility;76 improvedstatusof women;77 continuing forsocietyas a whole.*
efforts
to lowerinfantand childdeathrates.78
The pointhas been stressedby a numberof othercommenta-
* Approaches via PoliticalChannelsand Organization. Insist
tors,includingPaul Ehrlich,87KingsleyDavis,88and Alice Day.89
on population controlas conditionof foreignaid;79 creation of
Referenceis frequentlymade to such sourcesas the 1960 Growth
powerfulsuper-agencies for populationcontrol;80 promotion
of AmericanFamilies study,90in which the average familysize
of Zero Population Growthas world or nationalpolicy.8'
* AugmentedResearchEfforts.Social researchto discover preferenceof marriedwomen was reportedas 3.2 childrenper
family.This number,it is pointedout, exceeds the average com-
meansofachievinglowerfertility;82 biologicalresearchtoward
pleted familysize which is associated with population stabiliza-
improvedcontraceptive technology;83 sex determinationre-
tion (approximately2.11). If a stationarypopulation is to be
search.84
achieved, it will be necessaryfirstto motivateparents to have
In evaluatingeach of the alternatives,
Dr. Berelsonasked a
smallerfamilies.JudithBlake, Chairman of the Departmentof
seriesofsixquestions:
Demography at Berkeley,expressesthe point as follows:
* Is the scientific/medical/technological
base available or
likely? . . . the principalcause of . . . [population] growthin the
* WilltheGovernment approve? United States [is] the reproductionbehaviorofthe major-
* Can theproposalbe administered? ity of Americans who, under present conditions,want
* Can thesocietyafford
theproposal? familiesofmorethanthreechildrenand therebygenerate
* Is the proposalacceptableethically,morally,philosophi- a growthratefarin excess ofthatrequiredforpopulation
stability.9'
cally?
* Willitwork? * In the short run, however, Dr. Hardin concedes the possibilitiesof

On a timescale of 10-20 years,Dr. Berelsongave highest voluntarism.Says he: "I am surethatwe can do a lot towardsbringingthe
birthrate in this countrydown to a mere replacementlevel if we make
scoreson all countsto familyplanningprograms, intensifiedit reallypossibleforeverybodyto have birthcontrolat the time and the
educationalefforts
andaugmented research. place thathe or she needs it."86

viii

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 In attempting to changethe fertility
behaviorof the U.S. Someofthemoreadventurous chemicalapproachesto involun-
population,theseand otherwriterswouldselectfroma rangeof taryfertilitycontrol,
chemistCarl Djerassipointsoutin a recent
measures,varying from moderate(e.g.,populationeducation)to article,are and willcontinueto be beyondthereachof contra-
extreme(e.g., placingfertility
controlagentsin thewatersup- ceptivetechnology formanyyears.Of such "Orwellian"pro-
ply). Theyare notusuallyposed as mutuallyexclusiveoptions posalsas theadditionoftemporary sterilants
to wateror staple
fora society,but ratheras alternative
approacheswhichmight foods,Dr. Djerassisays:
be triedin progression. In a recenteditorialin Science,for
. . . it is perfectly
clearthatthe development of suclha
example,Garrett Hardinarguesas follows: universal birthcontrolagentis outsidetherealmofpos-
How can we reducerepeoduction?Persuasionmustbe sibilityin thiscentury.. . . Immunological approaches,
triedfirst.Tomorrow'smothersmust be educated to thoughprobablyslightly moreeasilyimplemelnted in an
seekcareersotherthanmultiple
motherhood.
Community 'Orwellian'societythantheadditionofa sterilant tofood
are neededto freewomenforcareersoutside
nurseries and water,are stillso faraway thattheydo notmerit
thehome.Mildcoercionmaysoonbe accepted- forex- seriousconsideration withinthecontext of[thisarticle].94
ample,tax rewardsforreproductive
nonproliferation. Someoftheproposalswouldhave universalimpact,whereas
Butin thelongruna purelyvoluntary systemselectsfor otherswould have selectiveimpactdependingon the socio-
its own failure:non-cooperators outbreedcooperators economicstatusoftheindividual(see Table 1). The latterdis-
. . . If parenthoodis a right,populationcontrolis im- tinctionmaybe important in termsof the anticipatedpolitical
possible.92 responseto each program. Programs designedto restructurethe
KingsleyDavis' pessimism
is somewhat
morequalified: family(forexample,by postponing marriageor by increasing
employment opportunitiesforwomenoutsidethehome) might
Withindirect measures[thatis,measuresthatleavepeo- carrycertaineconomicorpoliticalcosts,buttheywouldat least
ple freeto maketheirown reproductive decisionsbut applytoeveryone equally.Theycontrastwithprograms designed
whichaltertheconditions affectingthosedecisions],one to eliminatewelfarepayments formotherswithmorethantwo
hopesthatcompulsory measureswillnotbecomeneces- children,to sterilizeunwed mothers,or to abort all out-of-
sary.It can be arguedthatover-reproduction-that is,the wedlockpregnancies;
bearingofmorethanfourchildren-is suchmeasurestendto strikeselectivelyat
a worsecrimethan
mostand shouldbe outlawed.One thinksof the possi- thepoor- and in specificinstanceshavedoneso. Thus,a num-
bilityof raisingthe minimum age of marriage,of im- ber of billshave been introduced to sterilizewelfaremothers
posingstiff penaltiesforillegitimatepregnancy,of com- who have more than one out-of-wedlockchild,95though no
pulsorysterilization
aftera fifth birth.93 legislationhas been introducedto sterilizeparentsingeneral who

Table 1. Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility,by Universalityor Selectivity of Impact

UniversalImpact SelectiveImpactDependingon Socio-EconomicStatus MeasuresPredicatedon Existing

Motivationto PreventUnwanted
Social Constraints EconomicDeterrents/Incentives Social Controls Pregnancy

Restructure
family: Modifytaxpolicies: Compulsoryabortionof out- Paymentsto encouragesterilization
a) Postponeor avoid marriage a) Substantialmarriagetax of-wedlockpregnancies Paymentstoencouragecontraception
b) Alterimage of ideal family b) Child tax on Paymentsto
size c) Tax marriedmorethansingle Compulsorysterilizationof
d) Removeparents'tax exemption all who have two children Paymentsto encourageabortion
Compulsdryeducation of chil- e) Additionaltaxeson parentswithmore exceptfora few who would Abortionand sterilization
on detmand
dren than 1 or 2 childrenin school be allowed three
Allow certain contraceptivesto be
Encourage increasedhomosex- Reduce/eliminate
paid maternity
leave or to only
Confinechildbearing distributed
non-medically
uality benefits a limitednumberof adults
Improvecontraceptivetechnology
Educate forfamilylimitation Reduce/eliminatechildren's or family Stock certificate-type
per-
mitsforchildren Make contraceptiontruly available
Fertility controlagentsinwater allowances
control
Fertility agentsin water
alloand accessibleto all
supply Bonusesfordelayedmarriageand greater
Bonuses HousingPolicies:
Encouragepwomen work child-spaeing marria) Discouragementof pri- Improvematernalhealth care, with
Encouragewomento work child-spacing vate home ownership familyplanningas a core element
Pensionsforwomenof 45 withless than b) Stop awarding public
N children housingbased on family
size
EliminateWelfarepaymentsafterfirst2
children
ChronicDepression
Requirewomento workand providefew
childcare facilities
Limit/eliminatepublic-financedmedical
housing,loans and sub-
care, scholarships,
sidiestofamilieswithmorethanN children
Source: FrederickS. Jaffe,"ActivitiesRelevantto the Studyof PopulationPolicyfortheU.S.," Memorandum
to BernardBerelson,March 11, 1969.

ix

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
have four,fiveor ten children.A similarjudgmentapplies to governmentpaymentsfor sterilization,payment of all costs of
proposalsfortheelimination of taxexemptionsforchildren,or abortion,high marriagelicense fees,levyingof a "child tax,"and
fortheimposition of a "childtax,"whichwouldaffectvarious requiringthat all out-of-wedlockpregnancies be aborted. Less
socio-economicgroupsdifferentially. "sensational"measures considered by Davis include the follow-
Thosemethods whichinvolvepenaltiesand rewardsforgiven ing: to cease taxingsingle persons at a rate higherthan married
modesoffertilitybehaviordependto a largeextentupona prior persons; to stop givingparents special tax exemptions;to aban-
condition: tothemeansofeffective don income tax policies which discriminateagainst working
equal accessofall individuals
birthcontrol.In the absenceof such a condition,
a law of this wives; to reduce paid maternityleaves; to reduce familyallow-
kind would inevitablydiscriminateagainst those who were less
able thanothersto fulfill
itsrequirements.
EconomistJosephJ.
Spenglerdrawsattention to thisin connectionwithhisproposal
to rewardsmallfamiliesfinancially - on a deferred basis -
through thesocialsecuritysystem.He writes:
The arrangements cannotsucceedunlessthe meansto
controlfamily
sizearewidelyavailableaindverycheapin
totheincomesofthemasses.96
relation
Many of those who advocate changinig fertility
behavior,
whetherby manipulating preferencesor throughcoercion,are
skepticalabouttheeffectiveness
of "education"or "persuasion"
programs perse. Such programs,
presumably, wouldneed sup-
plementing withother,moredirect,legislative
measures.Judith
Blake,forexample,writes:
We have a compelling reasonto believethatdeveloping
peopleswillneverbe merely propagandized or'educated'
intowantingreallysmallfamilies.... It does not seem
thattheirdesiresforlargerfamilieswillsuccumbto flip-
charts,flannelboards,messagemovies,groupleadersor
'explanations'
aboutthe'advantages'offewchildren.97
Similarly,
Lincolnand Alice Day concludethat"we cannot
relyon awarenessof the factsof populationpressurealone to
providethemotivation forfamilylimitation
sufficientto stabilize
ourpopulation."98
Moreoptimistic projectionsof thepossibilities
of population
educationincludea recentpaperbyProfessorsCharlesB. Arnold,
RogerB. WellsandBettyE. CogswelloftheCarolinaPopulation
Center.Asdescribedin theApril1970issueofStudiesin Family
Planning:
... [the paper] expressesa conceptof sex education
broadenoughtoencompass partsofthepopulationaware-
nessapproachas well as sex and familylife.... Arnold
andhisassociatessubdividesexeducationintofourareas
[including]socialscienceaspectsof population(demo-
graphy,humanfertility, and the social determinantsof
populationgrowth)... the Arnoldgroupbelievesthat
educationalprograms . . . couldlead tolowersocietalfer-
lowervenerealdiseaserates,increasein theuse of
tility,
contraceptives[and] a rise in positiveexpectations re-
gardingsmallfamilysize.99
A numberof writershave outlined entireprogramsof action
which include measures designed to alter fertilitypreferences
or to forcechangesin fertility
behavior.
KingsleyDavis,100for example, suggests that policies be de-
signed to de-emphasize the family"by keeping presentcontrols
over illegitimatechildbirthyet making the most of factorsthat
lead people to postpone or avoid marriage,and by instituting
conditions that motivate those who do marry to keep their
families small." Limiting births within marriages might be
achieved by allowing "economic advantages to accrue to the
single as opposed to the marriedindividual,and to the small as
opposed to the large family."Among the examples he gives are
ances; to stop awarding public housing on the basis of family
size; to stop grantingfellowshipsto marriedstudents;to legalize
abortionand sterilization;to relax rules requiringmedical super-
visionofharmlesscontraceptives;to requirewomen to workout-
side the home or compel them to do so "by circumstances";to
pay women at the same rate as men and give them equal educa-
tional and occupational opportunities;and to organize social
life around the place of work ratherthan around the home.
In a similarvein, thoughless preciselyspelled out, is the pro-
posal 101advanced recentlyby the Committeeon Resources and
Man of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council. Universityof CaliforniageologistPrestonCloud, Chair-
man of the Committee,testifiedrecentlybeforethe House Con-
servationand Natural Resources Subcommittee.His testimony
included proposals that Congress and the Presidentexhort,by
formaldeclaration,all Americancouples to have no more than
two children; that tax and welfare laws be redraftedto dis-
courage the bearing of more than two children; that legal re-
straintson homosexualunionsbe repealed; and thatabortionson
request be legalized and performedfreeforindigentwomen.
The committeewhich he headed called forintensification "by
whatevermeans are practicable" of effortsto controlpopulation
in this countryand the world, "workingtoward a goal of zero
rate of growthby the end of the century.""Population control"
forthe U.S. and the world is justifiedon the premise "that the
communityand society as a whole, and not only the parents,
musthave a say about thenumberofchildrena couple mayhave.
This will require,"the Committeeconcludes, "profoundmodifi-
cationofcurrentattitudestowardparenthood."The Committee's
recommendationswere based on a paper contributedby Univer-
sity of California demographerNathan Keyfitz,who declared
(with KingsleyDavis) that "the essential ultimate goal of real
population controlwill require somethingmore effectivethan
merelyeliminatingunwantedbirths.102
Carl Taylor, of JohnsHopkins University,laments what he
calls "the sharpest polarization today between proponents of
familyplanningand advocates of 'population control'[i.e., alter-
ing fertilitypreferencesor coercing changes in fertilitybe-
havior],"and proposes a five-stageprogramwhich borrowsfrom
both approaches.103His suggestionsare as follows:
* Openup clinicsand tellwomenwhereto go. This,he says,
can reach 15 percentof target,but will thenlevel off.Unrealistic
expectationsbased on rates of initial acceptance can lead to
extravaganttargetswhichwill notbe met.
* Develop good technology
and convenientadministration.
Careful and considerateattentionshould be paid to quality and
convenience of service, to avoid backlash. Prioritiesshould be
good follow-upcare; respect for patient's privacy and dignity;
and the availabilityof a varietyof contraceptivemethods.
* Providecomprehensive
healthcare formothersand chil-
dren.As long as parentsthinktheirchildrenmightnot surviveto
adulthood,theywill want' 'extra"sons for"insurance."
* Devise methodsof economiccontrol.These will "altera

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
family's viewofitsowneconomicprospectsand itsunderstand- any policydesignedto influence reproductive behavior
ing of the financialimplications of morechildren"(e.g., it is must... relateto family-size goals [ratherthanjust to
betterto havetwoeducatedchildrenthansixuneducatedones; contraceptive means].105
handlaborofextrachildren is notas valuableas moneytobuya
newtractor, etc.). Taylorsuggestseliminating a nuimber ofpro- FamilyPlanningand thePoor
natalisttax and welfareprovisions, such as tax concessionsto Organizedprograms ofvoluntary fertilitycontrol, in theUnited
largefamilies, welfareallowances, paidmaternity leaves,favored Statesas inthedeveloping countries, havebeengearedprimarily
housingforlargefamilies, and specialeducationalbenefits for to servethe poor,who can least affordthe servicesof private
studentswithchildren.He advocatesencouraging womento physicians.Accordingly, attackson the conceptof 'voluntary
work;theoffering ofdirectdollarincentives forpeopletounder- familyplanning'in thiscountry havebeen framedforthemost
go sterilization or to recruitcandidatesfortheIUD. He warns, partspecifically in telrmsof poverty-oriented programs. In the
however,that"mostdirectlegal manipulations are politically articlequotedabove,Judith Blakeclaims:
hazardous...." * Publiclysupportedbirthcontrolservicesare not "appro-
* Modifysocio-cultural factorsin motivation... . the most priatetotheattitudes andobjectivesofthepoorand uneducated
difficult to implement." We shouldbeginnow,he says,to tryto in matters ofreproduction." In generalthepoorfavorbirthcon-
postponeage at marriage, and to promotethefurther education trol- and particularly poverty-oriented birthcontrolprograms
ofwomen. - lessthando themoreaffluent.
* The poornotonlyhave largerfamiliesthanthewell-to-do
Voluntary Fertility ControlBased on IndividualNeeds but"wantlargerfamilies andconsider themideal."
Voluntary programs assumeexisting fertilityaspirationsas given, * The notionthatthereare fivemillionpoor womenwho
andattempt tomaximize thefreedom ofeachpersontofulfill his "wantand need" publiclysubsidizedbirthcontrolhelp106is
or herindividualpreferences. Theyrepresent a continuation or grossly exaggerated, and failsto takeintoaccount,a) theactual
extension ofthephilosophy offamily planning, and may be sum- numbers of such women who are at riskof conception, b) the
marizedthus:to makecomprehensive birthcontrolservices, in- percentage whoare sterileor less thannormally fecund,and c)
cludinglegal abortionand sterilization, availableand accessible thosewho would objectto birthcontrolon religiousor other
to all persons,whatever theirsocio-economic status,on a volun- grounds.
tarybasis. Unlikethe measuresdiscussedin the last section, * The estimateoffivemillionincludesthosewhoare already
voluntary fertilitycontrolmeasureshave historically been used practicingeffective birthcontrol,and assumesthat all poor
primarily to enhancematernaland child health,to alleviate women"needthepill and thecoil."It is "fantastic" to seek to
povertyand generallyto strengthen thehealthand well-being "substitute scarce medical and paramedical attention for all
oftheindividual family; onlysecondarily has theirpurposebeen contraceptive methods now being used by poor couples."
to curbpopulationgrowth. Recentand prospective advancesin * In additionto beingineffective, wastefulof fundsand ir-
contraceptive technology, combinedwiththewideravailability relevantbothto the needs of the poor and the attainment of
oflegal abortionand sterilization, however,have raisedthepo- population stability,government-sponsored birth control pro-
tentialofvoluntary fertility
control as a meansoflimiting growth. gramsmaybe actuallydangerous.
Reductionsin the net reproduction rateto belowreplacement * Ratherthanconcentrating on the "irrelevant" distribution
level have been achievedin fourcountries(Japan,Hungary, ofcontraceptive materialsandservices, shesays,thegovernment
Bulgaria,Czechoslovakia);and in all fourof themthemethod shouldseek to createnew institutional mechanisms replacing
usedwastomakeabortion availableondemand. traditional pro-natalist
policies with anti-natalist policies. This
Primary amongtheadvantagesofvoluntary fertilitycontrolis would involve "basicchanges in the social organization of repro-
itspoliticalandethicalacceptability: ductionthatwill make nonmarriage, childlessness, and small
(two-child)familiesfar moreprevalentthan theyare now."
... it is a naturalextensionof traditionaldemocratic This mightbe accomplished by liftingpenaltiesforsuch anti-
values:ofproviding eachindividual withtheinformation natalistbehavioras "alreadyexistamongus as partofourcovert
he needsto makewisechoices,and allowingthegreatest and deviantculture,on theone hand,and oureliteand artistic
freedom foreachtoworkouthisowndestiny.104
culture, ontheother."
Moreover, itis theonlyapproachwhichhas beentriedto any OscarHarkavy, withFrederick S. Jaffeand SamuelWishik,107
degree.The veryfactthatit is operational standsas a challenge took issue with Dr. Blake's assumptions. Respondingto her
to competing methodsofpopulationcontrol.In partbecauseof article, theydeclared:
itsprivileged position, theeffectiveness ofvoluntary fertility
con- * Federalsupportof familyplanningprograms forthepoor
trolinreducing population growth hasbecomeoneofthecentral has beenbasedon providing forthemthesameopportunities to
issuesinthepopulation debate. planthenumberand spacingoftheirchildren as has beentradi-
As KingsleyDavis publishedthefirstmajorattackon family tionallyenjoyedby the moreaffluent. Government policyhas
planning programs abroad,so hiswife,Judith Blake,has led the also operatedon theassumption thataccessto voluntary family
attackon familyplanningprogramsin the UnitedStates.She planningprograms willassistthepoorin escapingfrompoverty,
writes: and will help reducetheirincidenceof infantand maternal
mortality andmorbidity.
. . . formostAmericans, the"family planning"approach,
concentrating as it does on the distribution of contra- * Dr. Blake'scontention thatthepoordesirelargerfamilies
ceptivematerials and services,is irrelevant,becausethey and favor birthcontrol less thanthenon-poor is based "on re-
already know about efficientcontraceptionand are al- sponses to opinion polls and ignores the three major national
ready "planning" theirfamilies.It is thus apparent that studies conducted since 1955, covering larger and properly

xi

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
structured randomsamplesof the U.S. population."What is with15 percentamongthenon-poor;and amongwomenwith
more,she invalidlyequates 'ideal' familysize with 'desired' less thana highschooleducation,unwantedfertility was more
family size. thantwiceas highas amongwomenwithhighschooleducation
* The threestudiesreferredto show near-unanimous ap- orbetter.
provalofbirthcontrolby all socio-economic groups,and reveal For out-of-wedlock births(the 1965 studywas of married
nosignificant differencesin desiredfamily size betweenthepoor womenonly), the authorsassumedthe same proportions of
andthenon-poor. wantedand unwantedchildrenas forbirthswhichoccurredin
* The estimateof fivemillionwomenwho need subsidized marriage. This assumption, theyadmitted, was "undoubtedly a
familyplanninghelp is defendedas a "reasonableapproxima- bias in thedirection ofunderestimating theextentofunwanted
tion"based on U.S. Census Bureau tabulationsof the char- fertility." Anothersourceof bias existsin thatwomenasked
acteristicsofthepoorandnear-poor. retroactively about childrenalreadybornhave a tendencyto
* The greaterrelianceof the poor on non-medical and less characterize themas wanted,eventhoughtheymayhave been
reliablemethodsof birthcontrolcannotbe attributed to their unwanted at thetimeofconception.
personalpreferences or lack of motivation "in view of thecon- The authorsestimatethatin the six-year period1960-1965
siderableresearchdemonstrating thatthepoorhavelittleaccess thereweresome4.7 millionbirths"thatwouldhave been pre-
to medicalcare forpreventive services[and that]whenaccess ventedbytheuse ofperfect contraception." Sometwomillionof
to modernfamilyplanningservices,offeredwithenergyand thesebirthsoccurredto thepoorand near-poor, of whichhalf
dignity, has been provided,theresponseofpoorand near-poor were to non-whites. For 1960-1968,theyestimatethatthere
personshas been considerable. ... In virtually all knownpro- were6.8 million unwanted births.Theircomment:
gramsoffering a varietyof methods85 to 90 percentof low-
incomepatientsvoluntarily chooseeitherpills or intra-uterine The conclusion seemsinescapablethattheelimination of
devices,themosteffective methods currentlyknown." unwantedfertility wouldhavehad a markedimpactnot
Oscar Harkavyand his colleagues (and ArthurCampbell, onlyonourrecentbirthrate,butalso onthelifesituation
ofmillions ofAmerican womeninornearpoverty.
Deputy Directorof the NICHD's Centerfor PopulationRe-
search'08)challengedDr. Blake'sassertionthatdesiredfamily Ofwantedbirthsbetween1960-1965,Drs. Westoff and Bum-
size amongthepoorwas largerthanamongthe affluent. They pass add that"two-fifths wouldhave occurredlaterthanthey
did not,however,confront the assertionthatfamilyplanning did iftheirtiminghad been controlled." Another resultof such
programs, as essentially"catch-up" programs forthepoor,would controlwouldbe a reduction in thenumberofchildrenwanted
be insufficienttoinducea zerorateofpopulation growth(though (and,in a perfectly contracepting society,thosethatare born),
FrederickJaffe, withAlan F. Guttmacher,109 had earliersug- sinceeach delaymakesit morelikelythata womanwillchange
gestedthatvoluntary fertilitycontrolprogramsforall classes hermind,orbecomesterile.
could have significant effectiveness in reducingfertility).This DonaldBoguetlIpredicts wideravailability and higher quality
challengehas been made by CharlesF. Westoffand Larry ofvoluntary fertility
control inyearstocome,suggesting that:
Bumpass.110 Theyexaminewhatwouldhappenin the U.S. if
"couplesareable to avoidhavingmorechildren thantheythem- . . . by [theyear2000] the presentmethodsof contra-
selveswantand are also able to avoid havingchildrenbefore ception,as highlyeffective as theyare,willhavebeenre-
theywantthem."Suchperfect fertilitycontrol,theysay,"might placedbynewer,morepleasant,andcompletely effective
well requiresocial policiesaimed at expandingresearchfor methodswhichhave longer-lasting effects. These meth-
moreefficient systems fortheirdistribution, as wellas legalizing odswillbe easilywithintheeconomicgraspofeveryciti-
abortion onrequest."Summarizing hisreportat PlannedParent- zen,and withoursteadilyexpanding systemofuniversal
medical care,will be part of theroutine medicalservice
hood's1969AnnualMeeting,Dr. Westoff declared:
availableto everyone, irrespectiveofage, maritalstatus,
If thefertilitypatterns ofthelastdecade continue, these or income.Abortionto avoid unwantedpregnancy will
threemeasuresbythemselves couldreduceU.S. popula- be legalanda routine partofhealthcare.
tiongrowthconsiderably. They would not requireany Desiredfamilysize,Dr. Boguesuggests,
changeinthenumberofchildren couplesappearto want is "theonlysuppor-
now,thusnotrequiringgovernmental policiesdesigned tive factor that seems capable of exerting a sustainedupward
to changefamily-size normswhichin theorymightbe thrust [onfertilityrates]."He comments, however, that:
muchmoredifficult anyway.Sinceno one knowsof any
alternative measureswhichcan holdout thepromiseof The fullimpactupon the societyof the dysfunctional
thismuchof a reductionin U.S. populationgrowth, it effects of the 'baby boom'is onlynow beginning to be
seemsapparentthata majorprogramalongtheselines felt,and thepressuresagainstbearingchildrenof third
shouldbecomethefirst orderofbusinessamongthosein- or higherordermay be expectedto get progressively
terestedin reducingtheU.S. rateofpopulationgrowth. stronger as theyearspass.
To determineunwantedfertility, the authorsanalyzedre- Voluntary fertility
controlcomposesthecoreoftheapproach
sponsesfromthe1965 NationalFertility Study,and foundthat to populationcontrolwhichis favoredby BernardBerelson.112
22 percentof birthsfrom1960 to 1965 wereunwantedby at Familyplanningprograms, he claims,comparefavorably
with
leastone spouse,17 percentby both (the averagewas 19 per- otherproposals;as "soft"measures,moreover, theyshouldbe
cent). Morethanone-third of non-white birthswerefoundto triedfirstbeforeresortis takento the "harder"measuresde-
be unwanted.Theyfoundthattheincidenceofunwantedbirths signedto persuadeor compelpeople to changetheirfertility
is negativelyrelated to education and income. Among the poor preferences.He suggests emphasis in programimplementation
and near-poor,one-thirdof births were unwanted, compared as follows:

xii

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 . .. on theinformational side,on encouragement ofcom- if the qualityof lifeis to be preserved,the world'sfinitere-
mercialchannelsof contraception, on the use of para- sourcestobe husbandedforfuture generations,and theenviron-
medicalpersonnel, on logisticsand supply,on thetrain- mentto be savedfromirremediable pollutionand degradation.
ing and supervision of fieldworkers, on approachesto Theydisagreeoverthespecific roleplayedbyU.S. population
special targetsrangingfrompost-partum women to growthin creatingor exacerbating such problemsas environ-
youngmen underdraftinto the armedforces.If the
[family planning]fielddid wellwhatitknowshowto do, mentaldeterioration, urbancrowding, ecologicalimbalancesand
thatin itselfwouldin all likelihoodmakea measurable worldresourcescarcity.Some believe,forexample,thatthese
difference - and one competitive in magnitudewith problemsstemfromour failureto controltechnology; others,
otherspecificproposals- not to mentionthe further thatthe chiefculpritis multiplying man withhis multiplying
impetusofan improved contraceptive technology. demandsforgoodsand services.Somesocialscientists fearthe
politicalandsocialconsequences ofa stationaryU.S. population,
A voluntaryapproach,whatis more,meetswhatDr. Berelson
witha highermedianage and narrower opportunities forad-
(afterAnsleyCoale) describesas an "ideal"program ofpopula-
tioncontrol; vancement among theyoung: might there notbe less scientific,
thishe defines
as a program which:
technologicaland culturalinnovationwith such an age dis-
* wouldpermita maximum ofindividualfreedom and diver- tribution? Otherssuggestthatzeropopulationgrowth mightbe
sity, economically beneficial,
reducingthetax load and possiblyac-
* wouldhelppromoteothergoalsthatare worthsupporting celerating theriseinthestandard ofliving.
on theirownmerits... and wouldnotindirectly encourageun- Perhapsthe sharpestdivisionamongthe expertsis overthe
desirableoutconmes,
e.g.,bureaucraticcorruption, methodswe shouldemployin achievingzerogrowth. The main
* wouldnotburdenthe innocentin an attemptto penalize arguments are:
theguilty,
* Ourfamilysize preferences are innately toohigh,and can be
* wouldnot weighheavilyupon the alreadydisadvantaged reduced
onlythrough coercivemeans(e.g.,compulsory steriliza-
[and] tendfurthertodeprivethepoor,and tionaftera certainnumberof illegitimate births,or temporary
* wouldbe comprehensible to thosedirectly
affected.. . and sterilantsinthewatersupply).
subjecttotheirresponse.
* Familysize preferences are currently (but notinnately)too
high,and can be reducedthrough publiceducation,or through
Summary othermeansofpersuasion(e.g., taxincentives, rewardsthrough
This paper has drawnupon theviewsof someof the nation's the socialsecuritysystem).
leadingscientistsand socialtheoristsand othercommentators- * Current familysize preferences
are low enough,and popula-
biologists,ecologists,demographers, economists,
sociologists
- tiongrowth can be sharplyreduced- perhapsbyhalf- merely
whohave addressedthemselves to thequestionof U.S. popula- byextending abortion
contraceptive, andsterilization
servicesto
tiongrowth anditsconsequences. all whowantand need them.Supporters of thisargument call
The specialistsagreethatworldand U.S. populationgrowth formorefundsforresearchin humanreproduction and contra-
mustat sometimebe broughtto a halt (thoughthereis con- ceptivetechnology,and fora morerationalservicedeliverysys-
siderabledisagreement as to whenthisshouldbe accomplished) tem.

A' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

Voluntary
fertility
controlis perceivedbymanyas the'ideal'methodofpopulationcontrol.

xiii

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 References
1. United Nations, "World Population Prospect as Assessed in 1963,"
U.N. PopulationStudies,No. 41, New York,1966.
2. Nathan Keyfitz,"United States and World Populations,"in Resources
and Man, Committeeon Resources and Man, National Academy of Sci-
ences-NationalResearch Council, W. H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco,1969, Chapter3.
3. Paul R. Ehrlich, "Overcrowdingand Us," National Parks Magazine,
Vol. 43, April1969, No. 259.
4. Luther Carter, "The Population Crisis: Rising Concern at Home,"
Science,Vol. 166, November1969.
5. Wayne H. Davis, "OverpopulatedAmerica,"The New Republic,Janu-
ary10, 1970, pp. 13-15.
6. JosephL. Fisherand Neal Potter,"Resourcesin the UnitedStates and
theWorld,"in The PopulationDilemma, (Philip M. Hauser,ed.), Prentice- 31. A. R. Sweezy, "Population, GNP and the Environment,"paper
Hall Inc., EnglewoodCliffs,N. J.,1965, Chapter6.
7. Committeeon Resourcesand Man, op. cit., Introductionand Recom-
mendations.
25. National Goals Research Staff,Towards Balanced Growth:Quantity
withQuality,U.S. Government PrintingOffice,WashingtonD.C., July4,
1970, ChapterII, p. 60.
26. AnsleyCoale, in University:
A PrincetonQuarterly,Winter,1968-69,
No. 39.
27. JosephJ. Spengler,"Populationand Economic Growth,"in Popula-
tion:The VitalRevolution(Ronald Freedman,ed.), Doubleday& Co., Inc.,
GardenCity,New York,1964, pp. 59-69.
28. Alan R. Sweezy and George Varky,"Prosperityand the BirthRate,"
paper presentedto Planned Parenthood-World
PopulationBoard of Direc-
tors,November1968.
29. Coale, op cit.
30. StephenEnke, "Is a StationaryU.S. PopulationDesirable and Possi-
ble?," GeneralElectricTempo,mimeograph, December,1969.
deliveredat the CaliforniaInstituteof Technology,Conferenceon Techno-
logicalChange& PopulationGrowth,May 7-9, 1970.
32. Coale, op. cit.

8. Thomas S. Lovering,"Mineral Resourcesfromthe Land;" Committee 33. Lincoln H. Day, "Concerningthe OptimumLevel of Population,"
on Resourcesand Man, op. cit.,Chapter6. paper deliveredat the 136th meetingof the AmericanAssociationforthe
Advancementof Science,December30, 1969.
9. Jean Mayer,"Toward a Non-Malthusian PopulationPolicy," Columbia
Forum,Summer1969. 34. WayneH. Davis, op. cit.

10. Ben Wattenberg,"Overpopulationas a CrisisIssue: The NonsenseEx- 35. Committeeon Resourcesand Man, op. cit., Introductionand Recom-
plosion,"The New Republic,April4 & 11, 1970, pp. 18-23. mendations.

11. RobertL. Heilbroner,"Ecological Armageddon,"The New York Re- 36. WilliamPetersen,The Politicsof Population,Doubleday & Co., Inc.,
view ofBooks,April23, 1970, pp. 3-6. GardenCity,N. Y., 1964, p. 15.

12. Fisherand Potter,op. cit. 37. David E. Lilienthal,"300,000,000 AmericansWould Be Wrong,"

13. Frank W. Notestein,"Zero PopulationGrowth:What Is It?" Family
PlanningPerspectives,Vol. 2, No. 3, June 1970; and PopulationIndex,
1970 (in press).
July-September
14. Harold J. Barnett,"The Mythof our VanishingResources," Trans-
action,June1967, pp. 6-10.
New YorkTimes Magazine, January6, 1966. ReprintedPP-WP, #545.
38. WilliamDraper,Jr.,"Is Zero PopulationGrowththe Answer?,"Popu-
lation Crisis Committee,mimeograph,Washington,D.C., December 2,
1969.
39. Lee A. DuBridge,quotedby WilliamDraper,Jr.,ibid.

15. JohnD. Chapnman,"InteractionsBetweenMan and his Resources,"in 40. Tomas Frejka, "Reflectionson the DemographicConditionsNeeded
Resourcesand Man, Committeeon Resourcesand Man, op. cit.,Chapter2. to Establish a U.S. StationaryPopulation Growth,"Population Studies,
November,1968.
16. RobertLekachman,"The PovertyofAffluence,"
Commentary,
Vol. 49,
No. 3, March 1970, pp. 39-44. 41. Enke,op. cit.

17. Paul R. Ehrlich,"Eco-Catastrophe!,"Ramparts,September1969. 42. Census Bureau Projections,U.S. Departmentof Commerce,Bureau of

18. Lamont Cole, "Can the World Be Saved?," The New York Times
Magazine,March31, 1968.
19. BarryCommoner,"Survivalin the Environmental-PopulationCrisis,"
presentedat symposium:"Is there an OptimumLevel of Population?,"
AmericanAssociationforthe Advancementof Science, Boston,December
29, 1969.
the Census, "PopulationEstimatesand Projections,"CurrentPopulation
Reports,SeriesP-25, No. 448, August6, 1970, p. 1.
43. Donald J. Bogue, "Population Growthin the United States, 1970-
2000," paper deliveredto a demographers'advisorygroup to the U.S.
Census Bureau,April9, 1970.
44. Notestein,op. cit.

20. JohnD. Calhoun,"PopulationDensity& Social Pathology,"Scientific 45. Coale, op. cit.

American,Vol. 206, p. 32, 1962.
46. Enke,op. cit.
21. Keyfitz,op. cit.
47. Notestein,"The PopulationCrisis: ReasonsforHope," ForeignAffairs,
22. MorrisK. Udall, "StandingRoom Only on SpaceshipEarth,"Reader's October1967.
Digest,December 1969.
48. KingsleyDavis, "PopulationPolicy: Will CurrentProgramsSucceed?,"
23. JamesL. Sundquist,"Where Shall They Live?," The Public Interest, Science,Vol. 158, November10, 1967.
No. 18, Winter1970, pp. 88-100.
49. K. Davis, "Will Family Planning Solve the Population Problem?,"
24. HermanP. Miller,"Is OverpopulationReallythe Problem?,"National The Victor-Bostrom Fund Reportforthe International Planned Parenthood
IndustrialConferenceBoard Report,Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1970, pp. 19, 22. Federation,ReportNo. 10, Fall 1968, p. 16.

xiv

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50. HI. B. Presser,"The Role of Sterilizationin ControllingPuerto Rican
Fertility,"
PopulationStudies,Vol. 23, p. 343, 1969.
51. P. M. Boffey,"Japan: A Crowded Nation Wants to Reduce its Birth
Rate," Science,Vol. 167, p. 960, 1970.
52. K. Davis, "PopulationPolicy: Will CurrentProgramsSucceed?," op.
cit.
53. Bernard Berelson, "Beyond Family Planning," Studies in Family
Planning,No. 38, February1969.
67. Bhatia,op. cit.,p. 190; KingsleyDavis, op. cit.,p. 738.
54. Howard C. Taylor, Jr. and BernardBerelson,"MaternityCare and
Family Planning as a World Program,"AmericanJournalof Obstetrics 68. Bhatia, op. cit., pp. 189-190; Samuel, op. cit., pp. 12-14; Spengler,
and Gynecology,Vol. 100, 1968, pp. 885-893. "AgriculturalDevelopmentis notEnough,"op. cit.,p. 30.
55. K. Davis, "PopulationPolicy: Will CurrentProgramsSucceed?," op.
cit., pp. 732, 738; Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantine
Books, New York, 1968, p. 139; Sripati Chandrasekhar,"Should We
Legalize Abortionin India?," PopulationRevietv,No. 10, 1966, pp. 17-22.
56. Melvin M. Ketchel,"FertilityControlAgentsas a Possible Solution
to the WorldPopulationProblem,"Perspectivesin Biologyand Medicine,
Vol. 11, 1968, pp. 687-703. See also his "Should BirthControlBe Manda-
tory?,"in Medical WorldNews, October18, 1968, pp. 66-71; P. Ehrlich,
The PopulationBomb,op. cit.,pp. 135-36.
57. KennethE. Boulding,The Meaning of the TwentiethCentury:The
GreatTransition,Harper& Row, New York,pp. 135-36.
58. William B. Shockley,in lecture at McMaster University,Hamilton,
Ontario,reportedin New YorkPost,December 12, 1967.
59. K. Davis, "PopulationPolicy: Will CurrentProgramsSucceed?," op.
cit.
60. S. Chandrasekhar,
as reportedin The New YorkTimes,July24, 1967.
61. K. Davis, op. cit.; Sloan Wayland,"Family Planningand the School
Curriculum,"in Family Planning and Population Programs (Bernard
Berelsonet al., eds.), University
of ChicagoPress,Chicago, 1966, pp. 353-
62; Pravin Visaria, "Population Assumptionsand Policy," Economic
Weekly,August8, 1964, p. 1343.
62. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb, op. cit., p. 162; RichardL. Meiel
& Gitta Meier, "New Directions,A Population Policy for the Future,"
Universityof Michigan, revised MS, October 1967, p. 11; UNESCO
ExpertMission,PreparatoryStudyof a Pilot Projectin the Use of Satellite
Communication forNationalDevelopmentPurposesin India, February5,
1968; WilburSchramm& Lyle Nelson,Communication SatellitesforEdu-
cationand Development-TheCase forIndia, StanfordResearchInstitute,
July,1968: "FamilyPlanning,"pp. 63-66.
63. Michael Young, in "The Behavioral Sciences and Family Planning
Programs:Reporton a Conference,"Studies in FamilyPlanning,No. 23,
Population Council, October 1967, p. 10; Dipak Bhatia, "Government
of India Small Family Norm CommitteeQuestionnaire,"Indian Journal
of Medical Education,Vol. 6, October 1967, p. 189; StephenEnke, "The
Gains to India fromPopulationControl,"The Review of Economics and
Statistics,May 1967, pp. 29-30; J. William Leasure, "Some Economic
Benefitsof Birth Prevention,"Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly,45,
1967, pp. 417-425; MarshallC. Balfour,"A Scheme forRewardingSuc-
cessful Family Planners," Memorandum,The Population Council, June
1962; W. Parker Mauldin, "Preventionof IllegitimateBirths: A Bonus
Scheme," Memorandum,The PopulationCouncil, August 1967; Ehrlich,
The PopulationBomb,op. cit.,p. 138.
64. S. Chandrasekhar, as reportedin The New YorkTimes,July19, 1967;
Edward Pohlman,"Incentivesfor 'Non-Maternity' Cannot Compete with
IncentivesforVasectomy,"CentralFamily PlanningInstitute,India, MS
1967?; T. J. Samuel, "The Strengthening of the Motivationfor Family
Limitationin India," The Journalof Family Welfare,Vol. 13, 1966, pp.
11-12; K. Davis, op. cit.,p. 738.
81. K. Davis, op. cit.,pp. 731-733.
65. Julian Simon, "Money Incentives to Reduce Birth Rates in Low-
Income Countries:A Proposal to Determinethe EffectExperimentally;" 82. K. Davis, op. cit.,738-739.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"The Role of Bonuses and Persuasive Propaganda in the Reductionof
BirthRates"; and "Family PlanningProspectsin Less-Developed Coun-
tries,and a Cost-BenefitAnalysisof Various Alternatives,"Universityof
Illinois,MSS 1966-68?; StephenEnke, "GovernmentBonusesforSmaller
Families," PopulationReview, Vol. 4, 1960, pp. 47-54; Samuel, op. cit.,
p. 12.
66. Bhatia, op. cit., pp. 188-9; Samuel, op. cit., p. 14; KingsleyDavis,
op. cit.,p. 738-9; RichardM. Titmussand BrianAbel-Smith,Social Poli-
cies and PopulationGrowthin Mauritius,Methuen,1960, pp. 130-136.
69. Bhatia, op. cit., p. 190; Titmuss and Abel-Smith,op. cit., p. 137;
Samuel, op. cit., pp. 12-14; K. Davis, op. cit., p. 738; Ehrlich, The
PopulationBomb,op cit.,p. 136-137; A. S. David, NationalDevelopment,
Populationand FamilyPlanningin Nepal, June-July 1968, pp. 53-54.
70. James Fawcett, personal communicationto Bernard Berelson,Sep-
tember1968.
71. Samuel,op. cit.,p. 12; GoranOhlin,PopulationControland Economic
Development,Development Centre of the Organizationfor Economic
Cooperationand Development,1967, p. 104; W. Phillips Davison, per-
sonal communication to BernardBerelson,October4, 1968.
72. David, op. cit.,p. 53; KingsleyDavis, op. cit.,p. 738; also, personal
communicationto BernardBerelson,October 7, 1968; Young, op. cit.,
p. 10; Titmussand Abel-Smith,op. cit., p. 130; Ehrlich,The Population
Bomb, op. cit., p. 138; BernardBerelson,AmitaiEtzioni, briefformula-
tions,1962, 1967.
73. Philip M. Hauser, in "The BehavioralSciences and Family Planning
Programs:Reporton a Conference,"Studies in Family Planning,No. 23,
PopulationCouncil,October1967, p. 9; K. Davis, op. cit.,p. 738; David,
op. cit.,p. 54; JudithBlake, "DemographicScience and the Redirectionof
PopulationPolicy," in MindelC. Sheps & JeanClaire Ridley,eds., Public
Health and Population Change: CurrentResearch Issues, Universityof
Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh,1965, p. 62.
74. K. Davis, op. cit.,p. 737.
of the pro-
75. Meier & Meier, op. cit., p. 9. For the initialformulation
posal, see Richard L. Meier, Modern Science and the Human Fertility
Problem,Wiley,New York,1959, chapter7.
76. Philip M. Hauser, "'Family Planning and PopulationPrograms': A
Book ReviewArticle,"Demography,Vol. 4, 1967, p. 412.
77. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commissionon the
Status of Women, "Family Planningand the Status of Women: Interim
ReportoftheSecretaryGeneral,"January30, 1968, esp. p. 17 ff.
78. RogerRevelle,as quotedin "Too Many Born?Too ManyDie. So Says
RogerRevelle,"by MiltonViorst,Horizon,Summer1968, p. 35; David M.
Heer and Dean 0. Smith,"MortalityLevel and Desired Family Size,"
paper prepared for presentationat Population Associationof America
meeting,April 1967. See also David A. May and David M. Heer, "Son
SurvivorshipMotivationand Family Size in India: A ComputerSimula-
tion,"PopulationStudies,22, 1968, pp. 199-210.
79. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb, op. cit., pp. 161-166, passim.The
author makes the same point in his article, "Paying the Piper," New
Scientist,December 14, 1967, p. 655.
80. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb,op. cit.,p. 138; S. Chandrasekhar,
"India's Population:Fact, Problemand Policy,"in S. Chandrasekhar,
ed.,
Asia's PopulationProblems,Allen & Unwin, 1967, p. 96, citinga Julian
Huxleysuggestionof 1961; Meier& Meier,op. cit.,p. 5.
xv
83. National Academy of Sciences, Committeeon Science and Public 100. K. Davis, "Population Policy: Will CurrentPrograms Succeed,"
Policy, The Growthof World Population, 1963, p. 5, pp. 28-36. This op. cit.
recommendation has of coursebeen made on severaloccasionsby several
people: "We need a bettercontraceptive."For an imaginativeaccountof 101. Committeeon Resourcesand Man, op. cit., Introduction
and Recom-
the impactof biologicaldevelopments,
see Paul C. Berry,Originsof Posi- mendations.
tive Population Control,1970-2000, WorkingPaper, Appendix to The
Next Thirty-FourYears: A Context for Speculation,Hudson Institute, 102. Keyfitz,
op. cit.
February1966.
103. Carl E. Taylor,M.D., "Five Stages in a PracticalPopulationPolicy,"
84. Steven Polgar, in "The Behavioral Sciences and Family Planning Internatiofl(lDevelopmentReview, Volume X, No. 4, December 1968.
Programs:Reporton a Conference,"Studiesin FamilyPlanning,No. 23,
PopulationCouncil, October 1967, p. 10. See also the recentsuggestion 104. Coale, op. cit.
of research on the "possibilitiesfor artificiallydecreasing libido," in
Approachesto the Human FertilityProblem,op. cit., p. 73. 105. JudithBlake, "PopulationPolicy forAmericans:Is the Government
BeingMisled?", op. cit.,pp. 522-529.
85. GarettHardin, "The Tragedyof the Commons,"Science, Vol. 162,
December 13, 1968, pp. 1243-1248. 106. Officeof EconomicOpportunity, Need for Subsidized Family Plan-
ning Services,United States, Each State and County, 1968, reportpre-
86. G. Hardin,"MultiplePaths to PopulationControl."Family Planning pared forOEO by the CenterforFamilyPlanningProgramDevelopment,
Perspectives,Vol. 2, No. 3, 1970, p. 24. 1969.

87. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb,op. cit. 107. Oscar Harkavy,FrederickS. Jaffe,

Samuel Wish'ik,"FamilyPlanning
and Public Policy: Who Is MisleadingWhom," Science, Vol. 165, 1969,
88. K. Davis, op. cit.,pp. 730-739. p. 367.

89. Alice TaylorDay, "Persuasionor Coercion:Alternatives

in Population 108. ArthurA. Campbell,"FamilyPlanningand the Five Million,"Family
Control,"paper deliveredat the SmithAlumnae College, "Man and His Plannning
Perspectives,
Volume1, No. 2, October1969.
Environment:Catastropheor Control,"May 29, 1969.
109. FrederickS. Jaffeand Alan F. Guttmacher,"Family PlanningPro-
90. P. K. Whelpton,A. A. Campbell and J. E. Patterson,Fertilityand gramsin theUnitedStates,"Demography,Vol. 5, 1968, p. 910.
FamilyPlanningin the UnitedStates,PrincetonUniversityPress,Prince-
ton, 1966. 110. Larry Bumpass and Charles Westoff,"The Perfect Contraceptive
Population: Extentand Implicationsof UnwantedFertilityin the U.S.",
91. JudithBlake, "PopulationPolicy for Americans:Is the Government Science,Vol. 169, September4, 1970, p. 1177.
BeingMisled?", Science,Vol. 164, May 2, 1969, pp. 522-529.
111. Donald Bogue,op. cit.
92. G. Hardin, "Parenthood: Right or Privilege?" Science Vol. 169,
1970, p .427. 112. Bernard Berelson, "Beyond Family Planning," Studies in Family
Planning,The PopulationCouncil, No. 38, February1969.
93. K. Davis, "Will Family Planning Solve the Population Problem?",
op. cit. Note: References54-84 were taken, almostverbatim,fromthe excellent
reviewof the literaturepreparedby BernardBerelson ("Beyond Family
94. Carl Djerassi, "Birth Control after 1984," Science, Vol. 169, Sep- Planning,"Studies in Family Planning,The PopulationCouncil, No. 38,
tember4, 1970, p. 949. February,1969).
Credits
95. JiiliusPaul, "The ReturnofPunitiveSterilization
Proposals,"Law and
Socic1 Review,Vol. III, No. 1, August1968. p. i, viii: drawingsby Robert Osborn, Mankind May Never Make It,
New York Graphic Society Ltd.; p. v: New York Daily News, U.P.I.;
96. JosephJ. Spengler,"PopulationProblem: In Search of a Solution," p. xiii: BernardCole, International
PlannedParenthoodFederation.
Science,Vol. 166, December5, 1969.

97. JudithBlake, "Demographic Science and the Deduction of Public

Policy,"Public Health and PopulationChange,eds. Mindel C. Sheps and
JeanClaire Ridley,UniversityofPittsburgh
Press,Pittsburgh,1965.

98. Liincolnand Alice Day, Too Man2yAmericans,HoughtonMifflin

Co.,
Bostoni,1964, Chapter10.

99. Ozzie G. Sinmmons,

Studiesin FamilyPlanning,No. 52, April1970.

xvi

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 00:30:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions