Dear EcoFem,
On the demography question: afew points.
1. Consumption per capita (in which respect the USA and Canada tru,mp
everyone by miles) multiplies the population effect dramatically,
although of course these countries also minimise certain of their
more outrageous impacts (the 'higher smokestacks' approach).
2. Europe and America have already had their pop. explosions
(so-called) and are therefore in no position to preach to the rest of
the owrld, except perhaps on 'two wrongs don't make a right' bases.
South Wales, for example, has a higher population densitry than
Kerala, a particularly populous state of India.
3. Life expectancy is also a major factor in pop. questions. A
doubling of life expectancy is just the same as a doubling of
population - except that the older people are more likely to be
politically conservative and economically unproductive. On the other
hand, at least they can't have more children ... yet.Again, the US is
leading Rich World efforts to initiate another pop. explosion with
its intense research into geriatric illness and cancer.
4. Coercive pop. measures are not only ethically problematic; outside
of China, none have been at all successful long-term. Success has
only come through measures which provide genuine local social
security - especailly improving women's access to education, primary
health care and political power. It so happens this is an ethically
sound agenda anyway, but its efficacy alone should recommend it.
Unfortunately, this also costs money, so poor countries with the
right ideas go for max growth to pay for it, thus leading to further
ecological degradation. Only a far more systematically socially
responsible attitude by rich world electorates will make the
slightest difference. And given the total hegemony of right-wing
monetarist paranoia about the Far East , rich countries are thinking
we can scarecly afford ourt own schools, let alone anyone elses.
This is objectively false, but it means, simply, that nothing is
going to happen. Pop. growth will decline in fast-developing
countries, but per capita consumption will go up at the same time or
quicker. Result ? Annihilation, probably. Isn't democratic capitalism
a wonderful thing ?
Yours, Greg
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Feb 18 18:12:29 1997
From: "G.GARRARD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:13:10 0000
Subject: Re: Population Issues
A few small points Ronnie, re your posting on dualisms and their
alleged impact on population issues.
Most countries with pop. increase are not 'Western' by any stretch. I
suspect medicine and improved hygeine is the main culprit for large
pop. growth, not conceptual structures or the marginalisation of
non-humans.
And regarding patriarchy, any notion of it that covers every country
in the world with pop. growth would have to be so vague as to be
meaningless. Philosophical feminism is not the vanguard,as it might
like to think, but the rearguard. At the front are men and women
fighting for food, water, healthcare, and political power free from
torture. Deconstructing dualism can wait a little while at least.
Classic liberal feminism, and feminist development practice is a far
more serious proposition.
Yours,
Greg Garrard
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 06:18:41 1997
From: "Linda See" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:21:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Population Issues
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Greg,
Thanks for another interesting post on a critically important issue:
population growth. I want to address, though, I implication I read
into a part of it.
From: Greg:
> 3. Life expectancy is also a major factor in pop. questions. A
> doubling of life expectancy is just the same as a doubling of
> population - except that the older people are more likely to be
> politically conservative and economically unproductive. On the other
> hand, at least they can't have more children ... yet.Again, the US is
> leading Rich World efforts to initiate another pop. explosion with
> its intense research into geriatric illness and cancer.
It's certainly true that the percentage of elderly people within
industrial populations has grown dramatically. It is also true that
the elderly contribute relatively little to the economic productivity
of the country. But ---- most recent population growth is in Third
World countries (as I know you are well aware) and most of the
increase in calculated longevity is due to a reduction in infant
mortality, not an increase in longevity among older people. Stopping
research in cancer would hardly help the population problem. To
reduce longevity effectively, you would have to concentrate on
raising the infant mortality rate - a project I don't care to
contemplate. I'm sure you don't either.
The unfortunate thing is, as you said, it's likely to happen anyway.
I guess I share your apparent pessimism about effective reduction in
the size of human population before the "natural" controls of an
increase in the death rate set in.
The Earth will survive us. It has survived mass extinctions before,
re-establishing a new ecology each time with new species. But we are
not likely to be around to appreciate them.
I would love to hear your response because I've developed great
respect for your contributions.
linda
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 06:56:13 1997
From: Nelda K Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ecofem
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:56:04 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "gwendolyn" at Feb 15, 97
07:51:28 pm
Gwendolyn--
So, how are you progressing on your initial paper on what you already
understand ecofeminism to be ? Also, you need to send me your
independent study form so that I can sign it, or is that no longer
necessary. Finally, in a post early this semester you raised the
question of to whom and why we need to justify ecofeminism--check out G.
Garrad's response to Ronnie Hawkins re: deconstructing dualism on
ecofem. clearly, Garrad would find most of ecofeminist work
irrelevant--and he's on an ecofeminist list.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Nelda
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 07:14:55 1997
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:28:52 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:28:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: "LIKE THE RIVER GOES INTO THE SEA, THOUGHTS FLOW INTO ME......."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WorldWID Fellows Program: Special Notice
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi
Could you please remove my name from your mailing list, as I no longer wish to be on
it.
Thanks,
jOHN JORDAN
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 07:38:06 1997
From: "G.GARRARD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:34:46 0000
Subject: Re: Population Issues
Dear Linda,
Thanks for your post, and comments. It's important to distinguish
between net numbers, which, as you say, are predominantly affected by
child motality rates, and population over time. There are proper
terms for these in demographics that I can't remember right now ...
Increasing life expectancy has, up until quite recently, been
effected through reducing infant mortality, which has initially
dramatic effects, as we can see in every case of population increase.
Wealth and healthcare can make a big difference at the upper end of
the age profile, however, and we're only just beginning to see that
kicking in now, in the US, Canada and Scandinavia especially.
Demographers are predicting AVERAGE life expectancies going up into
the 80's, 90's and even 100's in the next half-century in rich
countries. Geriatric illness is next on the hit list for drug
companies, because there is now so much money in it. The human body
ought to be able to last, with good nutrition and top medical care,
to around 120 on average. Now, if you think that the most recent pop.
increase in rich countires took place in the 1950's, you can see that
improvements in top-end life expectancy and the 'baby boom' will
probably coincide just around the time - 2030 or so - when Third
World pop. increase is predicted to level off (though not in Africa).
There won't be any extra people, but the ones there are won't die ...
This is a new kind of pop. explosion, and will be worse for the
reasons described - non-productive consumption, conservatism, and
various other problems. So the numbers don't go up until normal
replacement rate (around 2.1 per family right now) and the geriatric
explosion combine.
Yours,
Greg Garrard
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 11:31:03 1997
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 13:30:39 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: re: Population Issues
charset=US-ASCII
I just wanted to recommend a book the takes an ecofeminist look at population
and the environment. I found the book very enlightening and at times
disturbing to my old way of thinking.
Jiggins, Janice. 1994. Changing the boundaries: women-centered
perspectives on population and the environment. Washington, D.C. and Covelo,
CA: Island Press.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 13:12:26 1997
19 Feb 1997 15:12:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:12:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Donna Schnupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Women's International Network (WIN)
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is anyone familiar with the Ethnic Newswatch Publication, WIN? I couldn't
find it in the library nor on the website...Apparently it's a great
resource for women's issues.
Donna
