"Luis Gutierrez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [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.
True, but if we make statements that are clearly contradicted by data, we
should not ignore the data.
> In my original post I listed some examples of aggregate population
> trends that are informative.
Not to be picky, but the chart you cited was not a trend (change over time)
it was a cross-section comparing nations at a single point in time (2005).
And to my eye, not particularly informative except to say that some nations
are more developed than others, by various measures of development.
> 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.
Fertility rates are but one of dozens of indicators lumped together in the
cited chart, but fertility is the dominant factor in population growth,
which is a major driver of global change - in fact - population growth *is*
a global change.
>
> 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.
There needn't be a commonly accepted scale for a lone pioneer to make a
measurement. You got a good start on it when you asked me to rate religions
from zero to one on your innovative patriarchy scale. Ask your colleagues,
ask your students, collect about 100 opinions from a broad cross-section of
points of view, then publish your results and you'll be well on the way to
constructing a commonly accepted scale - the "Gutierrez Patriarchy Scale".
> If you exclude those critical factors from consideration,
> then you are ignoring the things that really matter.
It is always interesting to see new ideas about what really matters, but
they should be considered in the context of what is already known to really
matter.
> OK, but Canada is not the world. In other regions, the rankings by
> birth rate would be different.
I picked the Canadian data as a matter of convenience to save the work of
constructing a table, but the Canadian ranking reflects the global ranking,
as shown by this table that I laboriously constructed:
Region fertility pct_non pct_chr pct_mus
Africa 5.2 1% 46% 40%
Asia 2.7 17% 8% 23%
Lat.Am 2.5 3% 93% 0%
N.Am 2.4 9% 84% 1%
Europe 1.4 15% 77% 4%
Oceania 2.4 11% 83% 1%
Source: religious prevalence from Table No. 1348. Religious Population of
the World: 1998, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1999; total fertility rate per woman 1998, Table 028, U.S. Census
Bureau International Data Base
The regression line that describes total fertility as a function of
religious prevalence is:
Total Fertility = 3.6 - 11.6 (percent non-religious) - 0.5 (percent
christian) + 4.7 (percent muslim)
The point is that on this great globe of ours, birth rates *do* vary by
religion. Birth rates are lower in regions with a high prevalence of
non-religious people, and higher is regions with a high prevalence of
muslims.
I thought you had a pretty good idea of *why* they vary by religion:
variation in religion's proclivity to propagate belief in, and conformity
with the doctrine of patriarchy (insofar as a patriarchal mindset inhibits
couples' decision-making power over their own reproductive behavior). Now
it remains only to show that patriarchal doctrine is indeed the factor that
explains why religious people in general, and muslims in particular, have
higher fertility rates.
>
>> You have introduced the concept of "patriarchal mind set" into this
>> discussion as an important influence on reproductive decision making -
>> more important than religion.
>
> 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.
I was mistaken - reviewing what you wrote I see that you said patriarchy is
more important than birth control (not more important than religion).
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
But it *is* amenable to measurement - your rating scale being an example. I
have shown that there is a correlation between religion and birth rates.
Now you have merely to show that the reason for this correlation is
religious indoctrination in the patriarchal mind set. On your scale, does
patriarchy grade from lowest for non-religious people and highest for
muslims?
>
> 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.
> 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.
Okay, but again, how do you recognize, observe, or "measure" the existence,
rigidity, and dominance of patriarchy (religious or otherwise) in a country?
It needn't be a numerical measure, but it should at least be
intersubjective.
> This of course is work in progress, but I am not
> alone in thinking that the religious violence hypothesis is worth
> exploring.
Worthwhile indeed: I would encourage you to explore it more rigorously.
>> 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.
It is. Source: UN WHO Global Burden of Disease
http://www.who.int/whr/2002/annex/en/index.html
Annex Table 2 Deaths by cause, sex and mortality stratum in WHO Regions,
estimates for 2001
Global total estimated deaths: 56,554,000 100%
Due to communicable disease: 18,374,000 32.5%
Due to cardiovascular disease: 16,585,000 29.3%
Due to unintentional injuries: 3,508,000 6.2%
Due to violence and war: 730,000 1.3%
It is not clear what portion of the 1.3% due to violence and war is due to
religious violence and war, perhaps all of it?
>
>> 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.
It should be kept in perspective. To that end, data are often more helpful
than headlines.
Regards,
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
