Good points Sarah and Eva. But, as you know, that doesn't put western, predominantly christian countries off the hook. Over-consumption is our analogy to the threat of population growth. So maybe we should be discussing religion's role in changing those habits?
Enjoying the discussion, Peter PhD-student University of Copenhagen -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eva Johansson Sent: 8. december 2011 09:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon This site has elegant illustrations of Sarah's point: http://www.gapminder.org/ On 08/12/11 7:26 AM, 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. >> -- Eva Johansson, P.Ag. West Kootenay Plants Ltd. Winlaw, BC wkp.ca ph (250) 226-7309 fax (250) 226-7310
