I'm glad the importance of empowering women in facilitating the demographic transition has been brought up in this discussion because it gets lost too often in debates about population growth and neo-Malthusian alarmism. Hans Rosling's videos on gapminder.org - esp. the one about the Bangladesh miracle - illustrate the demographic transition beautifully indeed! And he even shows that it is not overall development or affluence per se, but investment in women's health and empowerment and reduction of child mortality which are more critical, as in the case of Bangladesh to bring about the demographic transition. It constantly surprises me that ecologists who ought to be familiar with life-history theory and evolutionary trade-offs about reproduction so often forget to apply that framework to human reproduction! Or talk to women who bear the burden of reproduction and directly face those trade-offs.
That said - let us also not forget that the religious fundamentalists in the US are influential enough to have shaped US foreign policy and aid funding in ways that actively prevent birth control information and means from being made available in some of those very countries listed by Sara Fann as having higher growth rates. So its not merely about convincing a "few" fundamentalists to have less children - their influence is far greater than their own reproductive output. Consider, for instance, the fact that most presidential candidates of at least one party in the US feel compelled to tout their own reproductive success while introducing themselves at a recent debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLtqCrlu_rU&feature=youtube_gdata_player While the clip is funny as presented by the comedian, one has to wonder about the cultural discourse within which these politicians operate. I don't think leaders of the other party will hesitate to tout their own reproductive success as well if asked about it. Speaking as someone from a country that inspired Paul Ehrlich to sound the alarm about the population bomb in the first place - I cannot imagine any present-day politician in India proudly proclaiming as part of an election campaign that they have 5 or 7 children! Peter adds the other huge elephant in the room: over-consumption! This is where the developed countries, with the US leading the pack, far outstrip the developing ones in terms of global ecological impact. We have to address consumption and the overall ecological footprint - and that is where it becomes especially critical to work on changing attitudes in the US and developed nations, even as we have to tackle the human- esp. women's- rights issues in all countries. What does the religious doctrine of human dominion over the rest of creation have to say about that? How are religious leaders addressing the resource over consumption side of the equation? Are they doing so at all? Madhu __________________ Dr. Madhusudan Katti Associate Professor, Dept of Biology California State University, Fresno On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Peter Søgaard Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Good points Sarah and Eva. But, as you know, that doesn't put western, > predominantly christian countries off the hook. Over-consumption is our > analogy to the threat of population growth. So maybe we should be discussing > religion's role in changing those habits? > > Enjoying the discussion, > > Peter > > PhD-student > University of Copenhagen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eva Johansson > Sent: 8. december 2011 09:38 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon > > 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
