The way you reduce family size is by increasing the standard of living, reducing the child mortality rate, and increasing access to education and birth control.
In poor countries children are your retirement savings, so at an individual level having more children is a rational decision. In many cases they aren't having more kids than they can afford--they can't afford not to have more kids. Even at a national level it's not clear that lowering birth rates without additional changes would help a country economically.
Well, sure, but the people having 8 kids in Sudan probably aren't checking the comments on HN for family planning advice.
So they are probably (well, not probably)... they ARE going to have more kids whether you like it or not.
The question becomes how do we (Western society, which has more resources than we know what to do with) address the issue and try to do good in the world.
> The question becomes how do we (Western society, which has more resources than we know what to do with) address the issue and try to do good in the world
Be involved in how your governments and MNC's behave in these countries. These entities are more likely to pay attention when you, as a voter or customer with more disposable income, say something compared to the citizens of poorer countries who have less of a voice.
> My opinion on this is unpopular, but I will say it anyway; People shouldn't have more kids than they can afford.
It's a natural response to the hardship. If the chance that the kid make it is 10%, then make 10 times more kids. That way you have around 100% chance that your lineage makes it through life.
You never have an around 100% chance. You always have less. The chance of at least one out of ten making it if they have 10% chance each is: 1-0.9^10, that's two thirds.
In other words: In a society where 90% of children die and women have 10 births, one third of the mothers will lose all. All assuming the deaths are independent of course.
To me that is quite a popular opinion. Unfortunately, as often is with popular opinions, it is quite... unhelpful. For the vast majority of eart's population, kids are a pension insurance that guarantee income if you happen to live old. As soon as kids turn from asset to economical liability, number of kids fall dramatically. This has been seen over and over again.
I'll go further and say that we should seriously consider getting fewer children, period. We have limited resources here on Earth, and while I could probably support a couple without problems, those resources would be better spent on those who are already here.
I'm only 25 so I don't know how I'll feel in 10-20 years, but right now this is part of my consideration when thinking about long-term goals and whether I'd want to have kids at some point. I might, so for that eventuality, plan B is to adopt. Plan C is to have one (and only one) kid, which already turns two parents into one descendant, so that's better than nothing.
The only thing I'm worried about is that smart families will do this and the stupid ones produce six. It's in the education and not in the genes... but it's also in the upbringing, and if they're brought up with the mentality of the kind of people who currently get six kids...
That's the problem with saying "people should have less children". Yes, they should, but the people who will listen are often the people best equipped to raise children. If prosperous, well educated people have less children (who we can assume will end up better educated) and poor people have more (who we can assume will not receive those opportunities), that will only increase the imbalance.
