Well, I don't think I meant population "control." My statistic about
Americans using a disproportionate amount of resources per person was to
complicate the discussion, introducing the idea that you can't look at the
five children someone in India, for example, might have and compare it to
the five children (and yes, folks here still do--witness the brood in Iowa
and the outpouring) an American might have.
Consumption must be factored in to population. It's also always been true
that the more educated a woman is, the fewer children she has. Many
enlightened organizations proceed from that point (also factoring in
western consumption) when working with population issues.
Right now, it is--as I believe it should be--a personal choice. However,
I think holding up (in a positive light) couples/individuals who don't
have children or have one or who adopt (or do foster care) is good public
policy, along with making a variety of birth control options/information
readily available and accessible.
Arlene
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Bertina Miller wrote:
> Actually I thought Arlene answered the reason for population control. (?)
> Maybe we are misinterpreting each other.
>
> Bertina
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Sarah Martin wrote:
>
> > I'm with you 100%. One of the problems with the population control folk
> > is that they do not address overconsumption and materialism in the
> > west...
> >
> > > ----------
> > > Sent: October 13, 1998 11:28 AM
> > > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> > > Subject: Family size & sustainability
> > >
> > >
> > > The average American uses as much resources as 400 Kenyans. This,
> > > according to Worldwatch Institute in D.C. Something to consider when
> > > you
> > > are evaluating/contemplating family size.
> > >
> > > Arlene
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
