You can’t put a limit to nature

According to a 2014 report by Index Mundi, the total fertility rate of children born per woman in Rwanda is four, considering the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years, and bore children, according to a given fertility rate at each age. This fertility rate isn’t one that is found among women in many countries. That’s to say, we are gifted with that and we shouldn’t disregard it by limiting parents on the number of children they should have.

Parents usually have a preference on the gender of their child. Some might want a boy and others a girl.

Imposing the ‘one-child’ policy on these parents can cause abortions, regret and even dislike of a child.

According to a 2013 study by Australian researchers, only-children (born as one in the family) exhibit traits such as selfishness, pessimism and risk aversions that are not as prevalent in children with siblings. These findings click with commonly held views that only children, more often than not, are seen as having been dealt a bad hand.

With life, comes a lot of uncertainties and at some point in time, parents might lose their only child yet they are beyond their childbearing years. This can cause a lot of loneliness, sadness and the need to have a child yet they can’t have one.

While dating, a young couple does slipup and gets a child that they didn’t plan for and breakup right after. When this single mother decides to start a family with another man later in life, she gets him into a situation of not ever having children because she already has one. The same applies to widows and widowers that lose their spouses at an early age in marriage and would like to get remarried later.

Population is power, a larger population and higher density of population provides both a larger potential market and easier availability of workforce. It is no secret that bigger and denser cities attract bigger companies and businesses to settle. With Rwanda on the road to becoming the regional ICT hub, it is important that the business has to be necessarily near the consumer to be economically and financially viable. With limits on our already lagging population, we can’t afford to have limits on how many children one should have.

In conclusion, children are a gift from God as it says in the Bible, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” In Genesis 1: 28. It is a command and no limit should be put on it.

patrick.buchana@newtimes.co.rw

It’s a timely solution for better results in the future

The barrage of counter-arguments that might come my way for fronting such an idea might require hiding in a military bunker but nevertheless, I believe that if we are to sustain a world for the current and future generations, something has to be done. Currently, Rwanda is among the most densely populated countries in Africa, if not in the world. Now, do you see the disaster here?

The high increase in population creates issues ranging from scarcity of some environmental resources, inadequate space for activities and a decrease in easy movement. There’s also lack of adequate privacy and quiet spaces, and not forgetting lack of property control. In general, high density spurs competition for valued environmental resources, and it prompts concerns about their scarcity and raises security issues. This is already happening and although the ‘one-child per family’ policy might seem a bit harsh, putting into consideration the infringement on human rights such as the right to determine how many children a person wants to have.

In Africa, we believe in having a whole nursery of children but that also has come with bigger consequences.

Parents have constantly failed to educate their children due to financial constraints and medical care is also a strain because it is expensive. Countries living under the poverty line, which Rwanda is among, have people who depend on burning wood and dung for their heat and cooking, which creates a climate risk. Population increase also gives rise to unemployment, which coupled with the inability to educate the children; we might end up with beggars, thieves, drunkards and thugs.

This puts our security at risk because planning for everyone is equal to doing the impossible. However, having a ‘one-child per family’ policy now would help reduce our population levels, reduce poverty levels, enable parents to afford quality education and medical care for their child and rebuild the environment.

We have a responsibility to protect our world and its limited resources. We can start by consuming fewer resources and using them more efficiently but it’s difficult to achieve this if we are still adding millions of children per day.

Other than attending endless conferences where we declare that we can’t do anything about the situation, why don’t we ask "Does a growing population really help any of us?” Do we improve the lives of over 7 billion people in the world now by adding 100 million people for land and resources?

So, can we effectively control population growth without the ‘one-child per family’ policy? On the onset, it seems unfair and irrational but if we are to have a successful economy, the policy demonstrates a nation’s willingness to change its future fate and reminds us that public policies must ultimately serve human interests for economic viability.

dean.karemera@newtimes.co.rw