I separated the two mostly because people I have run into who believe
that population growth is a problem fall into those camps. I am not
informed enough to take a position on any side of the population issue.
I know that natural resources are being consumed at an unsustainable
rate, but I have not explored the issue in depth. I am a graduating
senior, 12/97, and I don't really have the time to devote to studying the
issue in enough depth to feel as though I can take a position. I found
the posts on this topic very interesting. On the other listserv that
discussed this topic, the god/technology/science will provide, we need
not worry, dominated the issue. Could those of you who have commented on
any side give me some references? One day when I have time again, I
would like to look into this topic and I'm assuming that you may have
some sources, general or otherwise about this.
Tina
> Tina, I posted before I read your message - and it was a good one.
> However, I believe that the 'two lines of thought' as you described them
> (reducing consumption and slowing growth rates) are not two separate ways
> of looking at the problem, nor equal courses of action, because...high
> growth rates are a RESULT of overconsumption. Exploitation by the rich
> nations keeps the third world at the high birth rate, high death rate stage.
--
"Stealth is about the only defense the corporation has. Otherwise
words fail them. When "Fortune" ran an article, years ago,
complaining that McDonald's signs were marring the American
landscape, a McDonald's executive wrote to the magazine arguing
'uninterrupted scenery, too, can get pretty monotonous.'"
The Alphabet of Modern Annoyances
Neil Steinberg
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 19 15:16:22 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:16:14 -0700 (MST)
From: Jake A Paisain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jake A Paisain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Population/Environment/Ecofeminism/Anthropomorphism
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello all! (and especially Sue in Virginia and Carlos in Puerto Rico)
It might be of interest to subscribers to the ecofeminism listserv that in
1974, in her classic work, _Le Feminisme ou la mort_, (Editions Pierre
HORAY, PARIS) Francoise d'Eaubonne not only coins the term ECO-FEMINISM
(the first such usage) but spells out two major problems facing the planet
at the end of the 20th century: overpopulation and pollution (due largely
to overconsumption by that excessive population).
I am currently working on translations of two of d'Eaubonne's monumental
works for my Master's Thesis in French at the University of Montana.
Factors contributing to overpopulation, which d'Eaubonne, the founder of
Eco-feminism, points out as one of the major challenges facing the
human species, include patriarchy's insistence on forced heterosexuality,
and unequal sexual and gender roles and the socio-economic incurred by
these inequalities.
Women, for d'Eaubonne, constitute: "...the only [one] of the two sexes on
its way to being able to accept, refuse, slow down or accelerate the
reproduction of the species, in other words, the human subcategory in
whose hands completely rests humanity's salvation or death sentence, even
if [they are] as yet not completely conscious of this fact." (pg. 219)
(trans. jpaisain 1997)
On Tuesday, November 18, Susan Daniels wrote:
>
> I agree with Carlos. As Emily recognized, family planning is a
> complicated thing - and therefore not the sort of issue an ENVIRONMENTAL
> group such as the NWF should be getting involved in. Human population
> processes are, I feel, best understood by those with training precisely in
> that arena - sociologists - and not environmentalists or wildlife
> population biologists (such as the Ehrlichs, one of whom authored the
> Population Bomb; they have done tremendous harm by applying their admirable
> biological knowledge to human problems. The use of militaristic language
> is one example...)
To separate these issues as you suggest seems, to me, an anthropomorphism.
To say that human issues (i.e. "human population processes") are separate
from environmental issues is to reify the patriarchal tendency to separate
humans from nature. This is the same sort of value dualism that separates
male from female, a hierarchical value dualism which opens up the
possibility for oppression to exist. When value dualisms exist, one side
of the dualism is always perceived as positive, or better, stronger, or
more worthwhile than the other, and this 'positive' or 'stronger'
('human'/ 'male') side usually ends up oppressing, repressing, and/or
exploiting the other. Such is the case with the male vs female split, the
hetero vs. homo split, and the human versus nature split. To say that we,
as humans, do not effect our environment with our "reproduction processes"
is to perpetuate this split... You are placing humans outside, above or
over nature instead of accepting a holistic, human-IS-nature paradigm in
which we see ourselves as completely undeniably interconnected and
interlinked with the entire natural world... which we are.
>
> By identifying population growth as the problem, we lay blame precisely
> where it does not belong-- on the third world countries. It is a classic
> case of blaming the victim. In the U.S., people blame welfare mothers for
> taking their money-- but welfare mothers don't have any money. They have
> been scapegoated by the wealthy, who don't want people to realize who
> really has their money...
>
It may be the case that population growth is higher in so-called "Third
World" (a racist term coined by the French) countries where patriarchal
modes of thinking and existing are still the only "acceptable" or known
means of existing. Certainly population growth is going to be higher in a
country where, as a hypothetical example, ninety per cent of the
population are practicing Roman Catholics when the Pope has barred any
sort of contraception, and where issues like abortion are hardly even
spoken of, much less militantly fought for as in more "developed" nations
like the United States, or France, where women's issues and rights have
become mainstream issues debated in acadamia, in the press, in the
courtroom, and in the home.
I agree that we must avoid blaming the victim, who in the case of "Third
World Countries" are undoubtedly women (not to mention the Earth) who
perhaps believe they have little or no say over their reproductive rights,
burdened by outdated, male-oriented religions, governments, health care
and other authoritative patriarchal thoughtstreams. The blame lies with
that system of thought, not the people encaged by it. The responsability
for unlocking the cage of oppression both of Woman and of the Earth lies
with each of us. Patriarchy must be subverted and the Egaligarchy birthed
if this planet is to have a future. I quote F. d'Eaubonne:
"The only totalitarian combat capable of turning over the System
instead of exchanging it once more against another, and to pass finally
from the outdated, worn-out "revolution" to the mutation which our world
is calling for, that combat can only be that of women, of all women; and
not only because they were placed in the situation which the previous
pages describe (overpopulation/overconsumption/capitalism, etc. jp),
because iniquity and absurdity revolt the heart and call for the overthrow
of unbearable excess; this is legitimate, but remains sentimental; but it
is that, simply, it is no longer is a question of greater comfort, but of
necessity; no longer [a question of having] a better life, but of escaping
death; and no longer [a question of] a more just future, but of the unique
possibility, for the entire species, of STILL HAVING A FUTURE." (pg. 219)
(trans. jpaisain)
> Population control measures can be extremely harsh, especially against
> women, and very rarely work--
Is this the case with EDUCATION by women for women?
because population growth is not the root
> problem, but is just a symptom.
A symptom which will kill us if we allow it to.
The real problem is the unequal
> distribution of wealth and resources-- both the disparity between rich and
> poor nations and the disparity between genders within nations.
Which must be subverted through education, information, trust, respect,
friendship (ecofeminist ideals.)...
> I believe that population growth rates will decline only when women
>gain higher status and sexual freedom (changes that can only come from
>within a society), AND when the U.S. and other westerns get their
>brutally exploitive corporate interests OUT.
I agree!
Let's keep up our work.
Jake Paisain
Visiting Instructor/French
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
