Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Population statistics

Does child survival limit family size?

Nature volume 542, page 414 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Hans Rosling (1948–2017), physician and epidemiologist, famously upturned assumptions widely held by the public and by the development community — assumptions that, thanks to US President Donald Trump, are back in the spotlight. A recurring theme of Rosling's was that family sizes have been shrinking even though child survival rates have improved (see, for example, Nature 540, 330–333; 2016). Although reducing infant mortality is an unfettered good, we are concerned that key family-planning initiatives could be lost if governments uncritically assume that it leads to people having fewer children.

Rosling's global statistics on total fertility rate and infant mortality rate do not indicate causality, neither are they necessarily correlated. Although such a correlation holds for Asia, it does not in Africa. The infant mortality rate in Niger, for example, has fallen by two-thirds since the 1980s but the country's total fertility rate has risen slightly, leading to a predicted population explosion from 20 million in 2015 to 72 million by 2050 (see go.nature.com/2j7rzcv).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

    Malcolm Potts & Alisha Graves

  2. Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, USA

    Duff Gillespie

Authors
  1. Malcolm Potts
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alisha Graves
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Duff Gillespie
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm Potts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Potts, M., Graves, A. & Gillespie, D. Does child survival limit family size?. Nature 542, 414 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/542414a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/542414a

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. Brian Sanderson

    The ecologist Paul Colinvaux formulated biological theory for the human breeding strategy back in the 1970's. It answers your questions and certainly explains why infant mortality and family size are not simply related.

    Colinvaux wrote two very readable books that touch on the matter: "Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare" and "Fates of Nations; a biological theory for history".

    Trump is just a tack-on to a long list of Republican Presidents who did everything they could to limit access to family planning.

    Of course, there is nothing to stop other governments jumping in to make up the family planning shortfall.

    Meanwhile, we should be mindful of the inspiring words of Turkey's Erdogan who advocates that no Muslim should consider family planning or birth control. http://www.bbc.com/news/wor...

    Trump and Erdogan: Twins, only their mother could tell them apart.

  2. David James

    Sirs,
    In the correspondence published in the Feb. 23, 2017 edition of Nature Malcolm Potts and Alisha Graves were pointing out that a recent order by President Trump to reinstate the Mexico City Policy is likely to cause an increase in worldwide population and an increase in abortions. President Bush is blamed for causing such in a similar order in 2001 based upon an increase that occurred after that time. It was stated "US politicians must grasp that the best way to prevent abortions is to invest heavily in accessible family planning". Is it the role of the US, with the largest debt in the history of mankind, to spend millions of dollars for other countries to control their populations? Let's assume the statement is accurate that the best way to prevent abortions is to invest heavily in accessible family planning. That does not have to include funding abortions. Funding abortions is an area of moral policy, not just science. In fact science has shown beyond all doubt that the unborn human fetus is just exactly that &#8211 human. The age of viability has steadily decreased over the past 44 years abortions have been legal in the US. We have lost 50 million lives in that time. Who knows if one or more of those lives could have brought about answers to some of our problems?
    We as a people must grasp the concept that taking human lives before we have to face them speaks volumes about our society's humanity.
    David M James MD
    Family Physician
    Alaska

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing