2008-04-08, 13:02
#1
Citat:
Originally trained as a psychologist in the scientist-practitioner model, John Feeney, Ph.D., is today an environmental writer. His current primary areas of focus are population growth and the media's failure to acknowledge the gravity of the global ecological crisis. Today John lives with his family in Boulder Colorado, USA, where he continues to research and to write and speak about ecological topics.
Citat:
Läs hela intervjun @ Corrupt.org
...Population growth plays an undeniable role in humanity's impact on the environment. Cities within the developing world spawn people at unprecedented rates. Why is this and what can be done to prevent it?
That's a complex issue. There are a few theories. There is a somewhat questionable but, I think, not completely invalid notion of the "demographic transition." It would suggest that such parts of the world are just at a predictable stage in economic and social development and may proceed to lower rates of population growth as development continues. Presumably, that development would have to involve such things as education and empowerment of women, improved health care and provision of family planning services, a shift in social norms toward later marriage, and improved child survival (so that families don't assume they need to have many children so that a couple survive).
Add to that the idea, outlined by Daniel Quinn in Ishmael and examined in an article by Russ Hopfenberg, that human population growth, like that of any other species, is merely the result of increases in food production. Social variables have finally lowered fertility rates in developed countries, but they remain high in developing countries simply because we keep increasing the global food supply to meet increases in population. People are made of food after all.
The idea is that famine occurs somewhere – an event which would, in any other species, lead to a decline in population until it returned to within the limits of its food supply. But as concerned humans, we go in with food aid, made possible by our continual growing of the food supply, which allows the population instead to continue growing, thereby promoting further famine.
The answer, from this point of view, is to stop growing the global food supply. Of course the first objection is that this would allow starvation to occur. But if you read discussions about this by Quinn and others, it begins to appear this would not be the case. It is, in fact, the growing of the food supply which fosters much more famine than there would be otherwise. But it's a tricky issue. No question.
We have no guarantee that the demographic transition will continue to happen everywhere. And we're so far into overshoot already that we need to do whatever we can humanely to bring about a more rapid reduction and then a reversal of population growth.
We can do that by fostering things like women's education and empowerment and family planning services, using the media to promote new cultural norms concerning family size and family planning and the role of women, and considering such things as tax credits for smaller families. I'm not sure we'll be able to get governments to stop growing the food supply. It seems unlikely they'll embrace that idea.
But we've waited so long that now some believe we'll need some sort of global one-child-per-family policy. It would definitely have the desired ecological effect, but is obviously a tough sell. But they may be right that things have gone too far to expect otherwise to avert catastrophe. Certainly, the longer we put off committed action, the more extreme the actions we'll have to consider.
That's a complex issue. There are a few theories. There is a somewhat questionable but, I think, not completely invalid notion of the "demographic transition." It would suggest that such parts of the world are just at a predictable stage in economic and social development and may proceed to lower rates of population growth as development continues. Presumably, that development would have to involve such things as education and empowerment of women, improved health care and provision of family planning services, a shift in social norms toward later marriage, and improved child survival (so that families don't assume they need to have many children so that a couple survive).
Add to that the idea, outlined by Daniel Quinn in Ishmael and examined in an article by Russ Hopfenberg, that human population growth, like that of any other species, is merely the result of increases in food production. Social variables have finally lowered fertility rates in developed countries, but they remain high in developing countries simply because we keep increasing the global food supply to meet increases in population. People are made of food after all.
The idea is that famine occurs somewhere – an event which would, in any other species, lead to a decline in population until it returned to within the limits of its food supply. But as concerned humans, we go in with food aid, made possible by our continual growing of the food supply, which allows the population instead to continue growing, thereby promoting further famine.
The answer, from this point of view, is to stop growing the global food supply. Of course the first objection is that this would allow starvation to occur. But if you read discussions about this by Quinn and others, it begins to appear this would not be the case. It is, in fact, the growing of the food supply which fosters much more famine than there would be otherwise. But it's a tricky issue. No question.
We have no guarantee that the demographic transition will continue to happen everywhere. And we're so far into overshoot already that we need to do whatever we can humanely to bring about a more rapid reduction and then a reversal of population growth.
We can do that by fostering things like women's education and empowerment and family planning services, using the media to promote new cultural norms concerning family size and family planning and the role of women, and considering such things as tax credits for smaller families. I'm not sure we'll be able to get governments to stop growing the food supply. It seems unlikely they'll embrace that idea.
But we've waited so long that now some believe we'll need some sort of global one-child-per-family policy. It would definitely have the desired ecological effect, but is obviously a tough sell. But they may be right that things have gone too far to expect otherwise to avert catastrophe. Certainly, the longer we put off committed action, the more extreme the actions we'll have to consider.
