[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think we might agree that grounding the discussion in empirical data > would help us picture the issues and keep them in focus.
If you limit the discussion to things that can be numerically measured in some unambiguous units of measurement, then you may be excluding some of the factors that really matter. I am in favor of using measurements when they are meaningful and credible, but in human affairs it is wise not to give excessive importance to numerical measurements. In my original post I listed some examples of aggregate population trends that are informative. When you start disaggregating these data, you quickly get to the point in which the "noise" in the data obscures the "signal," so much so that you end up splitting hairs on numbers that have minimum relevance to human and social realities. If a concept is critical to enhance understanding about how things work in the real world, then it should be included in the analysis even if there is no commonly accepted scale of measurement and, therefore, no hard data. If you exclude those critical factors from consideration, then you are ignoring the things that really matter. > I was prompted by Jame's Annan's comment that "religion is obviously > relevant" to global change. After briefly wondering if it were so, I > recognized one potential pathway: the impact of religion on > reproductive decision-making, since population growth is widely > regarded as an important driver of global change, and birth rates are > known to vary by religion. For example, in Canada, 2001: > > Muslim 2.41 children per woman in 2001 > Hindus 2.0, > Buddhists, 1.34 > Orthodox Christians 1.35 > no religion 1.41 > Protestants and Roman Catholics 1.57. OK, but Canada is not the world. In other regions, the rankings by birth rate would be different. This forum is a discussion about ***global change***, and we better keep it at that level unless we want to drown in a sea of minutiae. Indeed, sometimes it is very useful to look at regional data sets. However, cross-regional comparisons are currently very fluid due to globalization and migration. > You have introduced the concept of "patriarchal mind set" into this > discussion as an important influence on reproductive decision making - > more important than religion. Can you tell us more about this - for > example, does "patriarchal mind set" vary by religion? Does it explain > why people of some relgions have higher or lower birth rates than > people of other religions? Have you (or anyone else) measured it, or > measured its relation to birth rates or religious affiliation, and if > so, what are the findings? Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly, so let me try to explain my understanding of "patriarchy." The point is not that patriarchy is more important than religion. This is not the point. The point is that patriarchy *corrupts* religion, and by corrupting religion contributes to many other forms of corruption. Let's start with dictionary definitions of patriarchy. Patriarchy: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/patriarchy Mindset (or mind-set): http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=mind-set The patriarchal mindset is self-evident in both secular and religious institutions. Both secular and religious patriarchies influence reproductive decision-making. I am focusing on religious patriarchies because they are the root cause of all other forms of patriarchy -- in the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is documented in Genesis 3:16. Please note, I am not saying that religious patriarchy, or even patriarchy in general, is the root cause of all global issues; but it seems to be decisive in a good number of them, therefore it should be investigated. BTW, two possible translations of Genesis 3:16 are currently being investigated by biblical scholars. The familiar one is: Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master." But this one has a new twist: Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though you may desire to control your husband, he will be your master." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203:16;&version=51;#en-NLT-72 In other words, the "patriarchal mindset" is a mentality of *domination and control*, no matter who is unilaterally dominating whom. Clearly, matriarchy would be as bad as patriarchy. The Christian position is best summarized by St. Paul: "submit to one another." (Ephesias 5:21). But even St. Paul succumbs to the patriarchal mindset elsewhere in his letters, until Pope John Paul II provided a comprehensive exegesis in his monumental work, "The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan," Pauline Press, 1997. There are some good online resources about this work. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body and there are several "theology of the body" websites, for example: http://www.theologyofthebody.net/ Back to the concept of "patriarchal mindset." Even though this is not a concept amenable to numerical measurement, it is not difficult to recognize in real life, and it is not that difficult to perceive that there are varying degrees of institutionalized patriarchy in the various religious traditions. Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation between the dominance of religious patriarchy is social life and birth rates. Such dominance usually goes together with low educational levels (both religious and secular) and other forms of underdevelopment, and these factors may interact in many complex ways. My working hypothesis is that religious violence (based on a rigid patriarchal mindset) is the most fundamental of these factors. I have started collecting some evidence (objective evidence, but not necessarily numerical) that seems to support the hypothesis. See, for example, the following ranking derived from the UN Common Database: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=138#row It seems to me that the countries with the highest fertility rates are those in which very rigid religious patriarchies are dominant, and the countries with the lowest fertility rates are those where the social dominance of religious patriarchies has been mitigated by other factors. This is UN data, and presumably credible, but most probably is not the outcome of scientific statistical sampling. And yet, in my opinion, the big picture is clear. This of course is work in progress, but I am not alone in thinking that the religious violence hypothesis is worth exploring. For some additional research by others, see the following: http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa125.htm http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_17_42/ai_n16107694 http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~apert/pat.html https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0410c&L=ecolog-l&P=2294 http://eve.enviroweb.org/what_is/main.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4471988.stm > Seldom considered, perhaps because any measurable influence it may have > is explained by other factors? It is certainly possible for any "effect" to be caused by more than one factor. If the effect is bad, then it is a matter of due diligence to investigate all the known factors, and even search for hitherto unknwon factors in order to mitigate harm to humanity as much as possible. > Violence may influence death rates too, but it is not a major influence > - and religious violence even less than violence from all causes. Not sure that this is true. > Population is certainly not the only factor in global change: the > effect of population on environment is mediated by organization and > technology. Religion's influence on the adoption and diffusion of > technical innovation may be an important factor in global change, for > example, as regards birth control technology or uranium enrichment > technology. According to the daily news, it seems to me that religion-induced violence is not something to be ignored. > Since you are interested in discussing religious violence as an > overlooked factor in global change, perhaps you could suggest some ways > that may be observed, and what your observations are? Examples: 1. Historically, many violent conflicts and wars have been (to a significant extent) religiously motivated. 2. The 9/11 attack was (to a significant extent) religiously motivated. 3. The current violence in the Middle East is (to a significant extent) religiously motivated. For additional data and analyses, you may want to visit the following online resources: The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics http://www.religiousconsultation.org/index.html A Guide to Global Population Projections http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol4/8/4-8.pdf Population Growth and Fertility Rates http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/HNPAtlas/growth.gif http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/HNPAtlas/fertility.gif Blood and Religion: The unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State http://www.jkcook.net/Blood-and-Religion.htm#Top Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/ Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_VAWReligion.php Colloquium on Violence and Religion http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/index.html The last one listed above is one of my favorites, and offers insightful analyses of the link between violence and religion. Hope we can continue the conversation on this important topic. Hope others will participate. Luis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
