Has Iran's Fertility Level Climbed Back up to Replacement?

A couple of months ago, I discussed the eye-popping drop in fertility experienced by Iran's population. In 1980 the average woman in Iran was having about 6 children, but by 2000 that had dropped to replacement level, and it has recently been below replacement level, according to data from the UN Population Division and the Population Reference Bureau. There may have been a recent rise back up to replacement level, however, according to a story in The Tehran Times that Abu Daoud linked us to. The report is from December 2017, but this is the first time that I had seen it:

Announcing the results of a research on ‘changes in population status’, Mohammad Jalal Abbasi highlighted that fertility rate has had a growing trend in recent years and that the replacement-level fertility has been achieved.

This in-depth research encompasses areas such as changes in fertility and childbirth rate, family and marriage variations, mortality and health status, domestic migration, urbanization, and population trends, ISNA news agency quoted Abbasi as saying.

The official went on to say that the growing trend of fertility rate in Iran can be a temporary result of modifying delayed childbearing and that taking measures to facilitate marriage and childbirth are needed to stabilize this rate.

I was impressed by the fact that Dr. Abbasi, who is Professor of Demography and Chair of the Division of Population Research of the University of Tehran, pointed out that the rise back up to replacement level might be a tempo adjustment. Fertility had fallen below replacement because women were delaying births, not necessarily deciding permanently not to have a child or another child. They have recently been making up at least some of those delayed births. Will the fertility level go back up above replacement level? My guess is that it won't, given the high correlation (mentioned in the article) between female education and the birth rate, and the fact that the rapid drop in fertility was accomplished by a combination of wide accessibility of contraceptives along with a sharp increase in female levels of education.

I'm guessing that the next round of population estimates by the UN Population Division and by the Population Reference Bureau will reflect this apparent uptick in Iranian fertility to a level right around replacement, especially since it already seems to have been picked up by the CIA in its World Factbook.

Should Countries Enforce Population Control?

An opinion piece with this evocative title was published over the weekend by Ozy.com encouraging people to weigh in with their own opinions.  I'm guessing that the whole topic was inspired by the a book titled "Choosing Daughters: Family Change in Rural China," by Lihong Shi, an anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, since much of the written space is given over to China's one-child policy. The editors also seem to accept the somewhat controversial analysis of David Goodkind that the one-child policy averted 400 million births in that country. As I said when that issue first emerged: "The one-child policy was a human rights disaster and, in my view, was not necessary to the drop in fertility in China. The Chinese were going to avert those births with or without that policy."

The title of the article suggests that "population control" means population limitation, with references to trying to limit births in China and India, and also getting into sterilization programs among mentally-ill people that arose during the social Darwinist movement early in the 20th century. However, if you watch the video of people interviewed on the street somewhere, you actually see a more nuanced view of "control." Human society controls many aspects of demographic change in ways that both encourage and discourage population growth. For example, we regulate human fertility by regulating age at marriage, and often by limiting your options once you are married, limiting incestuous sexual relationships, controlling access to contraception and abortion, as well as access to health providers who might be able to save lives were they more available. We allow access to guns that can kill people, but delay our reaction to finding lead or other contaminants in the water (keeping in mind that clean water is essential to human health). We control access to toileting and sewerage. We control who can come into and, in some cases, who can leave countries. In other words, as humans we control aspects not just of fertility, but mortality, and migration as well. Some of these regulations encourage lower rates of growth, at least in local places, and others encourage higher rates of growth. 

In my view, the bottom line is that a successful future for human society requires giving each of us as much control as possible over our own lives, especially in terms of reproduction and health and the ability to move where we want at least within our own country, but always keeping in mind that humans are a social species and we need to have a set of rules ("laws") that we can agree upon and make sense to us. A key element of this kind of "positive" control is education and on this point I am in 100% agreement with the Ozy.com conclusion: "Educating and empowering women just might save us all".

Suicide Is a Disturbingly Common Cause of Death

This week has witnessed two high-profile suicides, that of fashion designer Kate Spade, and of celebrity chef/world cultural explorer Anthony Bourdain. Sadly, those deaths come just as the Washington Post has summarized a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealing that suicide rates are going up in this country.

Suicide rates rose in all but one state between 1999 and 2016, with increases seen across age, gender, race and ethnicity, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In more than half of all deaths in 27 states, the people had no known mental health condition when they ended their lives.

Increasingly, suicide is being viewed not only as a mental health problem but a public health one. Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th-leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second-leading cause of death.

Suicides are especially prevalent in rural counties, and this was picked up on by Agweb.com.

“While we’ve seen many causes of death come down in recent years, suicide rates have increased more than 20% from 2001 to 2015. And this is especially concerning in rural areas,” said Brenda Fitzgerald, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, in a news release. “We need proven prevention efforts to help stop these deaths and the terrible pain and loss they cause.”

The map below tells the story of the rural contribution to suicide rates.

And here is one interpretation of what's going on in these places:

The peace and quiet of country living can be the American dream. But that dream can turn to a nightmare for those who become isolated and disconnected from their communities, says Karen Funkenbusch, University of Missouri Extension safety and health specialist. 

Rural communities are typically tightly-knit towns, where everyone knows everyone. While this may be the case for many, rural life poses risks for marginalized groups, Funkenbusch notes. These groups include racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ persons, those living in poverty, and newcomers. 

Funkenbusch says rural communities often lack mental and behavioral health services and transportation. CDC reports that more than half of U.S. counties don’t have a social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist. There also may be sociocultural factors such as stigma against seeking help, especially for males, she says.

UN Asks US to Stop Separating Migrant Kids and Parents

Thanks to Liz Kennedy for linking me to an AP story that the United Nations has called upon the United States to stop separating children from parents as they are detained after crossing the border into the U.S. seeking asylum. 

The United Nations human rights office called on the Trump administration Tuesday to “immediately halt” its accelerating policy of separating children from their parents after they cross the U.S. border with Mexico, insisting there is “nothing normal about detaining children.”

Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, scolded the United States over the hundreds of children removed from parents who were jailed for entering the country illegally. She said border control appears to take precedence over child protection and care in the U.S.

Nikki Haley, who is the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, responded just as Martin Short did in one of his great comedy sketches several years ago: "Go interview yourself!"

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, lashed back: “Once again, the United Nations shows its hypocrisy by calling out the United States while it ignores the reprehensible human rights records of several members of its own Human Rights Council.”

Liz also pointed to another recent article detailing the horrible conditions in which the separated children are living, and which also reminds us of the Trump administration's "rationale" for the separations:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has defended the practice of separating parents and family members from children at the border, which comes as part of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policy. “If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said in a speech last month. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”

The idea here is that Jeff Sessions wants to send a message to potential migrants to not bring their children with them. It turns out that if the Trump administration wants this message to be out there, it needs to come from the passage of immigration legislation by the U.S. Congress. Instead, a U.S. Senator from Oregon tried to visit a facility in Texas that was housing some of the children, and the facility called the local police to escort him away. 

Demographics of Primary Voters

Today is primary Election Day here in California. My wife and I have already voted via mail ballot (as we always do), and there is a lot of buzz around the state--and the country--about the results. California now has what has been called a "jungle" primary system, in which everybody running for office is on the same ballot, and the top two vote-getters will be on the November ballot, regardless of their party affiliation (or "preference" as the ballot calls it).

Elections are obviously based on who turns out to vote and so the demographic characteristics of voters, rather than the voter-eligible population, is what matters in the end. A story on NPR's "Here and Now" this morning illustrated the issues facing California. The state has a large immigrant and second-generation population that, even when eligible to vote, has lower turnout rates than the now-minority non-Hispanic white population. This means that within the state, Northern California is more influential politically than the more populous Southern California because voter turnout is higher in the north than in the south. Both parts of the state have high percentages of Asian and Latinos, with the latter especially prevalent in Southern California. Historically, their voter turnout rates have been relatively low, but are perhaps on the upswing. That latter conclusion is not just from California, but my son, Greg Weeks of UNC Charlotte, has noted that trend in North Carolina in a recent TV interview.

So, the bottom line is that the candidates vying for election to national, state, and local offices in November will be determined today by a group of voters whose demographics are not likely to accurately represent the voting-eligible population. This helps to explain some of the funny stuff going on in American politics.