Penna Dexter
Population policy received heavy scrutiny recently at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development.
Julia-Elena Cazan reported on the meeting which was held at UN headquarters in New York.  She wrote: “Governments voiced concerns that low fertility rates are threatening their societies with anemic economic growth, labor shortages, fiscal insolvency, and other social problems. But the UN population establishment insists it’s not a problem. Ms. Cazan says population bureaucrats, when confronted with these concerns, “tried to cast low fertility in a positive light.”
The UN has been able to convince some countries that population decline is a good thing and something to be pursued. But most are not buying it and are instead in a panic over steep declines in their populations.
Stefano Gennarini, Vice President for Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights, points out that “reality is catching up with the population control movement.” More and more countries,” he writes, “are awaking to the imminent threat of low fertility and aging in all societies.”  Many “countries are reaping the horrific consequences of sixty years of anti-natalist programs and propaganda.”
 According to Mr. Gennarini, “Currently, sexual and reproductive health is the number one item on the global health agenda. No other issue receives more funding.” But as countries suffer the harsh consequences of dwindling populations, and foresee worse down the road, they are questioning and scrutinizing the UN’s promotion of population control including reproductive health, i.e. abortion.
Western governments, including the U.S., constantly insist that “sexual and reproductive rights”  become international human rights. They attempt to exclude “language in UN agreements that protects the sovereign right of countries to decide questions of abortion and the provision of transgender affirming care, on their own.”
International pressure on governments is only one of many factors causing the decline in fertility rates and population worldwide. But these declines in population signal thatwe should abolish the UN’s population control apparatus.

Kerby Anderson
A few decades ago, Americans were increasingly concerned about privacy. Back then, we did several radio programs on the topic but now many of our privacy concerns have faded.
Mark Zuckerberg put this in perspective. He said when he got to his dorm room at Harvard, the question many students asked was, “why would I want to put any information on the Internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?” He then went on to acknowledge that people (especially his generation) became more comfortable with sharing information online.
In his book, Why Privacy Matters, Neil Richards writes about some of the myths that surround privacy concerns. One myth is that privacy is about hiding dark secrets. We hear the argument that “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” But that doesn’t mean we should have everyone see everything. We wear clothes out of modesty. We don’t want videos of what we do in a bathroom or bedroom.
Another myth is that privacy isn’t about creepiness. He provides lots of examples of privacy invasions we would not tolerate. Yet we have the famous comment by Google’s Eric Schmidt that I have mentioned in previous commentaries. He explained that: “Google’s policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.”
Another myth is that privacy isn’t primarily about control. We are assured that we can make informed choices about the amount of information a technology company can use. But do you really read all the words in a privacy notice? One famous study from more than a decade ago estimated that if we were to quickly read the privacy policies of every website we encounter, it would take 75 full working days to read them all.
Privacy concerns still exist, and we need to focus on them in the future.