{"id":6228,"date":"2015-01-23T21:14:23","date_gmt":"2015-01-23T21:14:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/psi2030.wpengine.com\/?p=6228"},"modified":"2018-05-22T22:22:51","modified_gmt":"2018-05-22T22:22:51","slug":"the-economic-case-for-contraceptive-choice","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/www.psi.org\/fr\/news\/the-economic-case-for-contraceptive-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"The economic case for contraceptive choice"},"content":{"rendered":"

The headlines from India last November seemed anachronistic: \u201cWeb of Incentives in Fatal Indian Sterilizations<\/a>\u201d and \u201cDeaths Put Spotlight on Indian Sterilization Camps<\/a>\u201d. The days of forced sterilisation must be behind us, aren\u2019t they? Isn\u2019t demographic pressure taking care of itself in the 21st century, through economic growth and development? If anything, aren\u2019t we worried about population declines <\/i>in G-7 economies, instead of the opposite elsewhere?<\/p>\n

Not exactly. The UN Population Division gives us global population projections, which often are confused as predictions<\/i>. They are not. Trendlines in global population are revised as new data arrives \u2013 and typically, projections are revised upwards. As of 2012, the UN\u2019s medium variant projection would take global population to nearly 11 billion people by 2100. But the accompanying high variant yields more than 16 billion<\/i> \u2013 over twice current population levels \u2013 based on the simple addition of\u00a0one-half a child per woman of reproductive age<\/a>. These projections may be conservative.<\/p>\n

Read the full article on the Agenda website.<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"template":"","related_countries":[],"related_projects":[],"news_category":[],"health-area":[],"capabilities-and-cross-cutting":[],"class_list":["post-6228","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t