Thread by @arvindpawan1

I keep getting hate mails, so let me explain.

In any context, using "population control" or "population reduction" is never okay.

Your intentions may not be malicious, but given the genocidal history of that phrase, it is best to not use that framing.

technologyreview.com/s/614682/criti…

Population growth in developed countries is below what's need to maintain a steady population.

So, when you're referring to "population reduction", you're specifically referring to the developing world.

Here's global fertility rate, where <2.3 is below replacement rate.

And saying population should be reduced when referring to the developing world has a long history in racism, eugenics, forced sterilizations, and other unspeakable horrors in our history.

This isn't new. There's a long history of well-funded Malthusian overpopulation alarmism.

Educating women & girls, providing reproductive health services, or workforce development are all important goals towards global equality.

But we should do it because it's the right thing to do. Not because it helps climate. @JosephMajkut put it well:

https://twitter.com/JosephMajkut/status/1191787345336578050?s=20

For those who want delve deeper into the history of population control, I *very* highly recommend Betsy Hartmann's book on reproductive rights and wrongs. betsyhartmann.com/reproductive-r…

Finally, and this pisses me off the most, it is nobody's business to tell women if or when to have kids.

That's what all these arguments around population control come down to in the end, and it's offensive.

It is the woman's decision, and hers alone.

Y'all need to butt out.