This site has elegant illustrations of Sarah's point:
http://www.gapminder.org/
On 08/12/11 7:26 AM, Sarah Fann wrote:
Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on
population growth?
If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be
by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be
less"fruitful". Despite the predominance of these religions in countries
like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are
decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these
countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More
importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own
decisions and aren't treated like property.
On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates
such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea,
Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of
women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack
education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast
majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even
put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012!
If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by
empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the
basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by
convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less
children.
Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then
look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is
clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in
population growth conversations like the one on this forum.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer<[email protected]> wrote:
As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in
Genesis to "be fruitful and increase in number" is a directive to produce
as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put
forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, "and you know,
the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each
with a ranch house and a back yard." The logic seems to be that as long as
there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This
logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids
and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and
controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle).
It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or
wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values.
While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it
indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even
modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint
concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7
billion living in suburban ranch houses.
--
Eva Johansson, P.Ag.
West Kootenay Plants Ltd.
Winlaw, BC
wkp.ca
ph (250) 226-7309
fax (250) 226-7310
