We have a poor track record for predicting the impact of long term population changes e.g. the Population Bomb (Ehrlich).

The consequences of trying to control reproduction (especially women’s) are historically bad e.g. China’s one child policy.

What is the evidence that fertility rates won’t spontaneously reverse at some point, at least to replacement levels, even without incentives or restrictions on reproductive autonomy? 

Why not concentrate on adapting to a lower population instead? E.g. increase productivity, automation, increased healthspan, etc.
 

I am skeptical of surveys that ask people “how many children they want.” Does this desire change over time depending on the age of the respondent? I think this needs to be qualified - under what certain circumstances would one want to have their ideal number of children? I.e. adequate resources including for child care, a stable partnership or community, no career penalty for women, etc.  The answers to the latter question are likely to yield more insight to potential addressable solutions.

Most species go extinct within 1 million years or “speciate” into a different species eventually. Why should humans be different?
 

Thank you for writing this!  As someone interested in exploring opportunities in biosecurity, I found it very helpful.

Editing my post as I may have come across too critical.  Very supportive of this work and just trying to give helpful feedback.

Thanks. In reviewing the survey methodology more carefully, I see the data comes from cross-sectional survey over 3 months at yearly time points Therefore impossible to say when during the year the increased use began.  But as Nick and the post clearly state, if this was the only major intervention during 2021, it’s reasonable to assume that at least some of the increase was due to the FEM campaign.

Fair enough.  Was going mostly from what I've read in their post and on their website in addition to the RP report.  I don't disagree.  Although, some international organizations partnering with local public health departments in LMICs have a decent track record in this regard.

Right, my question is how can you infer causality from the data?

"intervention period indicated by shaded area"?

Thanks for the link.  So the PMA survey shows a significant increase in modern contraceptive prevalence rate starting in Feb ‘21 - a full 7 months BEFORE the start of the FEM radio campaign - without any appreciable change on slope of the increase after the beginning of the FEM campaign (shaded area on the graph).  How are you attributing ANY increase directly due to the FEM campaign itself?  And any thoughts about what led to the increased rate preceding the start of the campaign?

Exciting work! Where can I find details about the survey - methodology and results?  What contraception methods were most commonly used and how was use assessed?  What was the continuation rate?  Was there any impact on unplanned pregnancy rate?