I have been following this discussion for the past week or so and agree that it is an important one to have. In response to environmental consequences of having a child, and western society being a good example.... From my point of view, the western society is not an example for environmental stewardship in any way. We may wait to have children, delaying population rise, but we use natural resources at a rate greater than developing countries. We in no way live sustainably with the environment as do some developing countries and, from my point of view, have made no strides to really change that. Elaine mentions complications in child birth at younger ages...what about the other side of the spectrum, effects of older mothers on the baby? I have recently returned from spending two years in a small village in West Africa where women are becoming more educated, having less children and working to protect their environment. They realize the consequences of having children early, exploiting their natural resources and not being educated- more so than my generation here in the western world. Finally, one child born here in the U.S. will have a significantly higher impact on the environment than a child born in a developing country, maybe we should work on lowering our impact here in the U.S. by the way we live, instead of imposing our ideas on others.
-Melissa On 11/8/06, Dina Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I recently heard an interview with E.O. Wilson where he stated very > matter of fact that birth-rate will decrease and overpopulation will > become > a non-issue (in the long run) as female education increases. As women > become > informed they are likely to choose (and know how to) delay childbearing as > well as limit the number of kids. Western societies are a good example. > > Educated women = slow down in population growth. What a win-win situation! > > Dina > > On 11/8/06 5:25 PM, "Elaine Joyal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Fellow listserv folks, > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something in this thread but I have a question which > I > > don't believe has been addressed. Namely, why is it in discussion of > human > > population growth do we discuss limiting fecundity as a way to limiting > > population and the relative impact of adding babies in the USA vs Third > > World countries yet there never seems to be discussion of the long-term > > impact of increasing or decreasing generation time? This isn't my > research > > area but I've thought about it and it seems that although it's part of > any > > population model when we start talking about people we ignore this part > of > > the equation (correct me if I'm wrong, please). > > > >> From what I've read the increase in population growth in some of the > > countries with the highest population growth rates is due in part to the > > relatively early age at which girls start having babies and not simply > the > > total number of babies they have in a lifetime. I haven't done the > math > > but if two women each have only two children but one has them as a > teenager > > and the other not until her mid to late 20's their total number of > offspring > > after 100-200 years will be very different. > > > > I see at least two added benefits to this scenario in addition to > > population decline. One, from a public health perspective I suspect > that > > many if not most of the girls bearing children at a very young age would > > benefit given the risks associated with pregnancy at an early age - I > also > > suspect that many of them are relatively poor and uneducated and that > > delaying child-bearing would help them achieve higher status. Second, > when > > people talk about the problem of low fecundity and replacement (and > > increased longevity) in certain European countries it seems that > shifting > > regeneration time would smooth out the tail of the curve and make this > less > > of an issue long-term. > > > > This sort of shift would require a lot of social change but others on > the > > list have commented on places where the number of children per woman has > > dropped surprisingly fast over a relatively short time interval. So why > not > > consider a new approach and recommend that girls wait until their 20's > to > > have children? > > > > In the interest of full disclosure I have [only] one child. His birth > late > > in my reproductive life hopefully minimizes some of the negative impact > of > > his arrival in our world. As his parent I also hope that he becomes a > > productive member of society whose positive impacts in someway offset > the > > negative. > > > > Comments? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Elaine > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dina M. Fonseca, Ph.D. > Assistant Curator > Academy of Natural Sciences > 1900 Ben Franklin Parkway > Philadelphia, PA 19103 > Phone: (215) 299 1177 (1195 lab) > Fax: (215) 299 1182 > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
