Don Libby wrote: > True, but if we make statements that are clearly contradicted by data, we > should not ignore the data.
Agree, assuming that the data is applicable and credible .... > 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. Which chart are you specifically referring to? Of course some nations are more developed than others, but which ones? Generally speaking, it seems clear to me that nations in which a rigid religious patriarchy is socially influential are the least developed by any of the common measures such as literacy rates, GNI per capita, etc. > 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. It is, whether due to fertility rates or other factors ... and, as you say, population growth is a global change ... one of many, all interdependent. > 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". :-) A "commonly accepted" GPS? Easier said than done.... > 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. Can you provide a "commonly accepted" list of what "is already known to really matter"? > 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) I don't doubt that this regression is the best one you can get ... but is it derived from sampling that meets the requirements of the Central Limit Theorem? Do you have bounds on the errors of estimation for each of the regression coefficients? > 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. The basic reason is that patriarchal religions perpetuate patriarchal families in which the wife must always be willing to have unprotected sex at the request of her husband ... and women generally stay at home to clean, cook, and get pregnant ... no professional careers ... > I was mistaken - reviewing what you wrote I see that you said patriarchy is > more important than birth control (not more important than religion). OK > 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? Not exactly ... some religions are more patriarchal than others ... some religions have mitigated the patriarchal bias, others keep trying to perpetuate the patriarchal bias and even increase it. I think birth rates are relatively low for non-religious people *and* for people in the least patriarchal religious traditions ... and relatively high for people in the most patriarchal religious traditions. > 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. Just watch the news from countries in which patriarchy is dominant. Women are practically invisible. > Worthwhile indeed: I would encourage you to explore it more rigorously. OK > 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? Again, you have to be careful when trying to capture social realities with numbers. According to some estimates, there may be as many as 200 million women in sex slavery. They typically age fast and die young. I hope we can agree that sex slavery is a form of violence, but I don't think this subset of the female population is tracked by WHO. > It should be kept in perspective. To that end, data are often more helpful > than headlines. In China and other countries, boys are wanted, girls are aborted. Along the border between Mexico and the United States, mass graves have been discovered containing hundreds of female corpses; it seems that the "coyotes" who bring ilegal immigrants from Mexico get the women's money, rape them, and then kill them because they don't have the same market value as the men. In Thailand, it is common for poor parents to sell their daughters as prostitutes. In India, some brides get killed due to dowry disputes or simply because they are not pleasing to the groom's family .... but it is hard to find data about these cases ... I think it is wise to consider both data and news ... and balance both according to their credibility. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
