As far as policy options go, what do people think about a tax break only
on the first two children in a family?
-would the policy have cultural exemptions?
-would a policy like this affect wealthier people rather that poorer?
(because wealthier people will have a higher income and will no longer be
able to use more than 2 kids as a deduction whereas poorer people may not
be able to use this deduction anyway because of their already low income)
-the policy should specify children (not dependents)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 22 21:14:12 1997
via sendmail with smtp (ident liveoak using rfc1413)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:08:08 -0500 (EST)
(Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #14 built 1996-Oct-22)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:10:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Population Issues
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, G.GARRARD wrote:
> 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.
I did not claim that conceptual structures were the *cause* of human
population growth, nor that "the marginalisation of non-humans" was the
cause--rather the reverse, in the case of the latter. And I am well aware
that the so-called "less developed" countries as a group have a higher
rate of population growth than the "more developed" or more industrialized
ones (2.2% and a doubling time of 32 years for the "less developed"
excluding China, according to the 1996 PRB World Population Data Sheet,
compared to 0.1% and 501 years for the "more developed"--but a growth rate
of 0.6% and a doubling time of 114 years for the U.S. and Canada).
While the most rapidly growing countries may not have had "western" ways
of thinking originally, with the spread of industrialization, global
communications, the export of western culture for international
consumption, et cetera such thought patterns are being widely propagated
in what some have called the coming global monoculture, and so I think a
critique of western culture is salient for just about any part of the
globe. Also, for those of us who are immersed in it, western culture is
the culture we have the most "right" to criticize--tho if some of the
objections cross cultural as well as national boundaries, so be it,
if valid points are being raised. It is my understanding from
anthropological discussions that patriarchy, if in different cultural
forms, is so widespread as to be virtually the rule in human societies of
the present day.
> 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.
I simply disagree. Those who are fighting to free themselves and others
from oppression of various sorts must have a belief system. Subjecting the
beliefs we are indoctrinated with from birth by our cultures
to intelligent examination and criticism
may be a luxury that those who walk miles every day for firewood or clean
water can't easily afford,
but those of us who have the means to chat on the internet might do well
to take a look at some of those beliefs.
The main point of my comment was that, while the effects of continued
human population growth will prove increasingly negative for our own
species, our species is not the only one in the picture. Val Plumwood's
recent article in _Ethics and the Environment_ (vol. 1, no. 2) speaks to
the need for challenging human-centeredness according to a "liberation
model," as one would challenge androcentrism, ethnocentrism, etc. Those
who express concern for the women who are trapped into producing many
children because of a cultural belief that one isn't fully "male" without
fathering many children, for example, may critique the androcentrism of
such a culture, but if they fail to see the toll that may be taken on
nonhuman life as such cultures expand and take over the remaining habitat
essential for other lifeforms--putting such concerns out of the picture as
"unimportant" in comparison with human concerns, or even arguing in favor
of the human "right" to choose unlimited procreation without taking such
concerns into consideration--then their point of view is still being
limited by anthropocentrism. A number of feminists and ecofeminists--Lynda
Birke, Carol Adams, Marti Kheel, etc in addition to Plumwood--are
beginning to address the issue of human/nonhuman and culture/nature
dualism by bringing nonhuman animals into their analyses. Doing so in
regard to population issues seems largely yet to be developed, however,
though the human population/nonhuman populations relationship is widely
discussed by deep ecologists and conservation biologists. Ecofeminists
need to be cognizant of this set of issues as well as those within their
more traditional (so far) scope of concern.
Ronnie
