‘Jolly good point’ approach needed

THE EDITOR, Madam:

One simply must commend Kristen Gyles’ timely and penetrating ‘Labour Day’ article, on Friday, May 23, posing the ‘fertile’ question: “Birth rate increase – at what cost?” Her cautionary tale of China’s former one-child policy is a stark reminder that governmental ‘conception’ of family planning, however well-”meaning”, can have profoundly “unfruitful” social consequences.

My own observations in China showed how that policy, while curbing population growth, also ‘dismantled’ traditional extended families and ‘burdened’ only-children with expectations heavier than a local spliff. The resulting self-focused workforce, I noted, seemed quite ‘ill-equipped’ to support a rapidly ageing population – a “bit of a pickle”, indeed.

Ms. Gyles rightly warns that current drives to ‘boost’ birth rates, especially with financial incentives, risk repeating these ‘baby steps’ towards past errors. Cash can’t ‘multiply’ the love, stability, and genuine desire needed to raise a child. Pushing ambivalent adults into parenthood for mere statistics might ‘swell’ the numbers, but could lead to emotionally neglected children, weakened family bonds, and a long-term societal ‘self-centredness’ with ‘getting it on’ that’s costly.

The real ‘cost’ here is far grander than mere dollars and cents. Gyles’ message is clear as a crisp morning above the “moist Portland rain-forest”: governments must offer genuine support to those who truly desire children, while respecting the freedom of those who don’t. Coercion, even subtle, is simply ‘not on’.

DENNIS MINOTT