This article brought to mind an incident that occurred in Egypt sometime ago, when the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) held sway of things. Soon after the opening of the Aswan Dam, officials noticed a drastic fall in the number of children born in the general vicinity. Officials thought that some strange factor or disease had altered the fertility of women in the area. Accordingly, they dispatched all sorts of experts -- including some from the UN -- to track it down. No biological/chemical/medical agent could be found to explain the mystery. Finally, a survey was done which sought input from the Egyptians. The culprit was soon identified. With the coming of electricity, several families had acquired television sets. Every evening people would gather around (neighbor's) TV sets. Result? 'Less time (inclination? to make babies'.
From the foregoing, one might find most of Buwembo's article somewhatsimplistic, superficial at best. Demographers tell us that the size of a population can be expressed by a deceptively simple equation:
Population (today) = population (yesterday) + births (since yesterday) - deaths (since yesterday) + migration (since yesterday).
Migration has two components: immigration (in-flow) and emigration (out-flow). Migration is simply the net result of the two processes, and may thus be positive or negative in its influence on population, depending on which of in-flow or out-flow is larger.
All four factors that affect today's population size are influenced by a host of complex factors, as well as the interactions of those factors. These include, age & sex distributions, sex-specific mortality & fertility rates, education levels, nutrition, income distribution, delivery of health services, epidemics; to mention but only a few.
Given that the population census was only completed 'yesterday', so to speak, and therefore has yet to be tabulated, let alone analyzed; what evidence or basis is there for anyone to conclude that population increase/decrease in any given area is either solely or even predominantly due to an excess of births? My understanding is that it takes at least 2 years after a census, in the best of (computerized) conditions, to come up with tabulations that might be used to address such seemingly simple questions. Perhaps Iam mistaken.
It is irresponsible, in my opinion, for officials to tell us to have more babies for the sake of it, or so a given region may achieve numerical superiority in pursuit of some political goal. I think the emphasis ought be to move away from having lots of (low quality) children, to few (high quality) children. That is; quality is more important than quantity: three or four children are more than enough.
It is important to realize that resources are finite. Further and even more critical, a parent's ability to garner those resources is itself limited. There is no point in having children one can not afford to nurture adequately: i.e., feed, clothe, educate and provide medical care for his is more so in situations of poverty (in which people behave opposite to common sense). Ideally, one should only have those children that they can provide for well, while leaving enough resources for rest & recreation (as opposed to pro-creation). It is high time parents stopped expecting someone to help them raise their family (often at the expense of the helper's own family), however unpopular such an idea might be in Africa. The reality is that we are not in caves anymore, and such a strategy is ill suited to these ruthlessly competitive times.
Secondly, there is no shortage of children or people in Uganda yet, to cause official to urge the population to have more babies. Witness the recent 'ethnic strife' resulting from when one groups moves from their traditional area to that of another, e.g. Kibaale District, Teso, etc. If anything, such incidentally are indicative of too many people or over-population, in some regions of the country.
Finally, for what it is worth, demographers are the professionals who study populations. Statisticians sometimes do too, but they tend to lack depth and are somewhat mechanical in their approach. It is sort of, the equivalent of going to a gynecologist for a dental ailment. However, the tendency to mix the two is not rare.
ssemakula
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----Original Message Follows----
From: Omar Kezimbira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ugnet_: Get Thee to the Bedroom and start making babies
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
THE EAST AFRICAN-NAIROBI-KENYA
Opinion
Monday, October 14, 2002
---------------------------------
Get Thee to the Bedroom and
Start Making Babies!By JOACHIM BUWEMBO
It is now official: War is a catalyst for population growth and peace causes populations to decline. That is the most striking conclusion from the Uganda 2002 preliminary census results released last week.
Since the last census, just over a decade ago, the northern region, which has been embroiled in war and suffering, has produced more babies than any of the other three regions, namely eastern, western and notably the central region, which has known uninterrupted peace for nearly 17 years.
The central region, which corresponds to the old kingdom of Buganda, had 4.8 million people in 1991 and has only managed to add 1.7 million in the decade since, to reach today�s 6.6 million - a 35 per cent increase.
The north, on the other hand, grew from a mere 3.1 million people in 1991 to 5.3 million in 2002, adding 2.2 million, or 71 per cent! The east added 2 million to its 4.2 million over the decade to reach 6.2 million (48 per cent) while the west added 1.8 million to 1991�s 4.5 million to reach 6.3 million today (40 per cent).
The least populated north thus realised a greater population growth than any of the other three regions. Other things remaining equal, indications are that in another 10 years� time, the country�s population will have grown from today�s 24 million to about 36 million, with the eastern region having most people, followed by the north, Buganda and the west in that order.
Officials from the bureau of statistics said that the lives of people in northern Uganda had been so disrupted by Joseph Kony�s rebellion that they had little left to do other than make babies.
They have fewer choices, to borrow the economic term that the statistics officials used. On the other hand, the statisticians say, the people of Buganda have been enjoying peace and relative prosperity for so long that making babies has ceased being their priority; they have other choices.
Before the statisticians discovered this trend, however, the Buganda kingdom officials had already noted with concern that the Kabaka�s subjects were no longer having enough children.
So the kingdom radio, CBS, starts the day every morning by reminding the Baganda to have as many children as possible in order to ensure their society�s survival. Any Baganda couple that has a baby and lets the station know is congratulated on air and showered with praises befitting of heroes. One case that was hailed for days on air was that of 80-something monarchy official, Sheikh Ali Kulumba, whose wife recently presented him with a bouncing baby boy.
It is not only the monarchy that is urging people to have more children. Even staunch supporters of the ruling Movement tend to share their views. According to Luwero district chairman and ex-freedom fighter Alhajji Abdul Nadduli, the family planning campaign is a racket by Western nations to encourage Ugandans to become extinct.
Other, less bold Movement leaders also privately express the view that the country�s population is too low in relation to its enormous development potential and its ability to feed its people with minimum effort.
The leaders of the Buganda kingdom have a different reason for urging the Kabaka�s subjects to reproduce faster. For several years now, they have been demanding federal status, which has been denied. They simply lack the numbers to get a motion through in their favour, be it in parliament or in the district councils.
Buganda leaders now say they will only be taken seriously when they become the majority in the country. The recent figures must therefore be a big blow to the monarchy. For while Buganda had 29 per cent of the country�s population in 1991, its share has now fallen to 27 per cent.
The problem, as the statisticians noted, is too many choices for the relatively affluent and stable region. Today, for many men in Kampala, following British Premiership football is a higher priority than being home with their wives.
The country�s leading cartoonist, Mr Ras, for his part blames the decline in Baganda numbers on the women in the affluent central region. According to him, the women do not want their men to "mess up" their hair after they have visited the salon. By thus avoiding physical contact, the women are causing the extinction of their tribe.
By the same token, according to Ras, whenever Kony strikes in the north, couples respond by coming together in a fervent desire to replace their murdered brethren.
At this rate, the Kabaka of Buganda may soon have to ban his subjects from visiting beauty parlours and watching European soccer on TV.
---------------------------------
Joachim Buwembo is Editor of The Sunday Vision of Kampala.Comments\Views about this article
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more
faith.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Broadband?�Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
