Discussions — involving religion or otherwise -- on overpopulation typically focus on the need for people to have fewer children. This is probably the most expedient route but unfortunately very distasteful to religious people and people in traditional cultures. As a Peace Corps volunteer in a West African I knew many educated women who had numerous children — their traditional and religious values of having large families was not completely changed by being educated, having a western-style career, or being relatively affluent.
Luckily, population growth rates also slow as the age of first reproduction increases — this creates more space between generations. This is another reason why education reduces population growth rates - people, especially women, defer starting families until after they finish school or begin a career. Additionally they often space births out to facilitate furthering their education, career or business. Improving access to education is a powerful route to decreasing population growth rates that does not need to directly tell people to have fewer babies. On Dec 8, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Sarah Fann wrote: > Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on > population growth? > > If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by > coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be > less"fruitful". Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like > the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and > have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have > access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women > in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't > treated like property. > > On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates > such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, > Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of > women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack > education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority > of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female > rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! > > If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by > empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the > basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by > convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. > > Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then > look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is > clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in > population growth conversations like the one on this forum. > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer <[email protected]> wrote: > As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis > to "be fruitful and increase in number" is a directive to produce as many > children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there > is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, "and you know, the whole > population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch > house and a back yard." The logic seems to be that as long as there is space > to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently > put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I > have also heard this from the influential — and controversial -- pastor Mark > Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). > > It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or > wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. > While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it > indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. > A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point > out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in > suburban ranch houses. >
