From kaler001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Thu Sep 1 09:16:42 MDT 1994 >From kaler001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Thu Sep 1 09:16:40 1994 Return-Path: kaler001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu (root@maroon1.tc.umn.edu [128.101.118.21]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id JAA11832 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 1994 09:16:39 -0600 Received: by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Thu, 1 Sep 94 10:17:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 10:00:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Amy K Kaler Subject: family planning? socal change? To: PPN@csf.colorado.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello ppn, I'm a Ph D student in sociology here in Minneapolis. I'm becoming more and more interested in the interaction between social change and patterns of human reproduction, especially on the more individual "anthropological" level rather than on the large-scale mass demographic level. I'm particularly interested in southern Africa, where I've lived and worked for several years; but as I'm still trying to figure out theory, frameworks, assumptions and all of that, I'm therefore interested in similar work that's being done anywhere in the world. Does anyone know of any references or any people concerned with the social history of family planning in southern (Third World, "developing") societies? I am particularly interested in what new options and negotiations appear for women's individual reproductive lives at times when new contraceptive technologies are being disseminated and when simultaneously society is undergoing rapid social and economic chnage, including the emergence of new conflicts over patriarchal control of women and children. Thanks in advance for any insight or stimulation you can provide me, Amy Amy Kaler Internet: kaler001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Department of Sociology Fax: (612) 624-7020 909 Social Science Building University of Minnesota From dhenwood@panix.com Fri Sep 2 08:38:59 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Fri Sep 2 08:38:58 1994 Received: from esf.Colorado.EDU (esf.Colorado.EDU [128.138.173.17]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id IAA07713 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 1994 08:38:57 -0600 Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by esf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id IAA00652 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 1994 08:40:11 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA02405 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ppn@csf.colorado.edu); Fri, 2 Sep 1994 10:40:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 10:40:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: Population agendas To: psn@csf.colordao.edu, ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A view on the population issue from the excellent new newsletter Counterpunch (tagline Power & Evil in Washington), edited by Ken Silverstein (founder) and Alexander Cockburn (newcomer): As the nations of the world muster in Cairo for the U.N. conference on population and development, nothing would seem more demure than the posture of the Clinton administration. As U.S. governments for the past thirty years have all done, it broadcasts its abhorrence for "coercive measures" and comfortably adopts feminist language about the right of women to control their own bodies. [...] The best and the brightest have always been the most assiduous advocates of population control. The gung-ho, can-do spirit of these fanatics was embodied by Reimert Ravenholt, a director of AID's population program: "like a spring torrent after a long, cold winter, the United States has moved with crescendo strength during recent years to provide assistance for population and family planning throughout the developing world," he wrote in 1973. In a 1977 interview -- in which he said that his agency's goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world's women -- Ravenhold warned that a population explosion, by supposedly causing a fall in living standards in the South, could spark revolt "against the strong U.S. commercial presence" in the Third World. The policy bedrock underlying Ravenholt's exuberance was National Security Study Memorandum 200, commissioned and prepared in 1974 when Henry Kissinger was head of the NSC. In a prefiguring of the present "empowerment" shoe polish, planners stressed that t the U.S. should "help minimize charges of imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children." The true concern of the study's authors was maintaining access to Third World resources (the document was prepared during the height of the "commodity crisis"). NSSM-200 worried that the "political consequences" of population growth could produce internal instability in nations "in whose advancement the U.S. is interested." In extreme cases, where population pressures "lead to endemic famine, food riots, and the breakdown of the social order...the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. NSSM-200 acknowledged that First World resource use, not developing world growth rates, was the real issue. Its authors noted laconically that "the US, with 6% of the world's population, consumes about a third of its resources." To restrict Third World population would ensure that local consumption would not increase, and possibly affect the availability of Third World resources. As a natural extension of that logic, the report favored sterilization over food aid. [...] In a 1990 Lancet, the British medical journal, Dr Maurice King of the University of Leeds wrote that the options of citizens of "demographically trapped" countries are mass death from starvation and disease, large-scale migration, or permanent dependence e on food and other resources from abroad. King suggested it might be best to let poor children in these countries die. "If no adequately sustaining complementary measures are possible, such desustaining measures as oral rehydration should not be introduced ed on a public health scale, since they increase the man-years of human misery, ultimately from starvation," wrote King. Kill them to be kind. [For info on CounterPunch, write to CounterPunch, c/o Institute for Policy Studies, 1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20009, or call 202-234-9382.] Doug Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Mon Sep 5 20:23:13 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Mon Sep 5 20:23:13 1994 Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id UAA10865 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:23:13 -0600 Received: from re.colorado.edu (re.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.10]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id UAA12018 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:24:33 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by re.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id UAA11241; Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:24:31 -0600 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:24:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela To: PPN List Subject: re: population/fertility Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'm grateful to Avery and Doug for their additions to this discussion. Both the end of Joe's last message, and Doug's contribution suggest a new direction for discussion - issues suggested by the population conference, starting up soon in Cairo. First, to respond to Joe, perhaps the only reason we cannot see a "general correlation" between fertility and culture or religion is because of the type of variables they are - nominal, rather than ordinal, interval or ratio. That is, we cannot place culture or religion on an ascending or descending scale and look at a general relation to fertility; we can only compare averages (in fertility) for members of those groups. However powerful these forces are, however, we cannot deny the eroding/homogenizing influence of industrialization and "modernization" (Westernization?) upon both culture and religion. That's precisely why it's so strongly resisted by Islamic fundamentalists, among others. Such modernization also tends to create more income or class inequality than traditional societies have ever experienced before, and the lower classes, being shut out of the "real" economy and "real" jobs, fall back on what they can. That's where the need for larger families apparently comes in. Education, even when run by local cultural/religious authorities, seems to have some universal effects - lowering aggregate fertility and mortality, setting more social & economic change in motion, and reducing resistance to "liberal" ideas. Note, however, that "universal" effects or a "general" correlation do not mean that every individual or family responds in this way; we are talking about a probablistic effect - measurable, predictable, but NOT perfect! In response to Avery's message: we know that education is a strong determinant of income, fertility and mortality. Testing for a relation between income and fertility after controlling for education implies that the education comes before the income - as it does in the life of an individual. How do we test for the determining effect of income on education, however, within families and classes? Poor families cannot always afford even to do without their children's labor during free schooling, much less provide books, fees, etc. The assumption that education precedes income seems to preclude this relation.... Lastly, Doug's message raises a number of issues. One on my mind recently is: What do we mean by "overpopulated?" Can a town, or region, or nation be overpopulated, or only the whole planet? Is the definition a matter of overcrowding, or a balance between resources and people? If the resources of a country are being used to grow crops for export, while the people of that country go hungry, is the country overpopulated, or exploited? Can a rich country, which uses far more of the world's resources than it provides, be overpopulated? Does a high birth rate always translate into overpopulation, or is it the distribution of resources that primarily determines what we call "over-populated?" What are your thoughts on this? Pamela Behan From quigleyh@cs4.lamar.edu Mon Sep 5 23:13:22 MDT 1994 >From quigleyh@cs4.lamar.edu Mon Sep 5 23:13:21 1994 Received: from cs4.lamar.edu (CS4.LAMAR.EDU [140.158.128.6]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id XAA14008 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 1994 23:13:19 -0600 Received: by cs4.lamar.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09837; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 00:18:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 00:18:30 -0500 From: quigleyh@cs4.lamar.edu ("HAL D. QUIGLEY") Message-Id: <9409060518.AA09837@cs4.lamar.edu> To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Fertility Modeling Pamela Behan wrote: First, to respond to Joe, perhaps the only reason we cannot see a "general correlation" between fertility and culture or religion is because of the type of variables they are - nominal, rather than ordinal, interval or ratio. That is, we cannot place culture or religion on an ascending or descending scale and look at a general relation to fertility; we can only compare averages (in fertility) for members of those groups. Would it be possible to identify a dimension of the concept "religion"? As a "gross" example, how about number of children (or even spacing) and attendance? Or, historically, when a given religion emerged on a space and compare to population/fertility reports? Clearly, in consideration of the Catholic Pope's position on birth control, there's gotta be a measurement of the relationship of the religious practices of 900 million catholics and fertility (even if class, ie, socio-economiprovides the framework, ie, controlled-for variable)...Now, would such an instrument/measure be applicable to Baptists (as a group they also are sorta "progeny-producers").. In response to Avery's message: we know that education is a strong determinant of income, fertility and mortality. Testing for a relation between income and fertility after controlling for education implies that the education comes before the income - as it does in the life of an individual. How do we test for the determining effect of income on education, however, within families and classes? Poor families cannot always afford even to do without their children's labor during free schooling, much less provide books, fees, etc. The assumption that education precedes income seems to preclude this relation.... My thot here is that it may help to consider "whose" education..for example, parents of the "progeny-producers". This consideration may help position the concept "education" as a reasonable variable preceeding income.. However powerful these forces are, however, we cannot deny the eroding/homogenizing influence of industrialization and "modernization" (Westernization?) upon both culture and religion. That's precisely why it's so strongly resisted by Islamic fundamentalists, among others. Such modernization also tends to create more income or class inequality than traditional societies have ever experienced before, and the lower classes, being shut out of the "real" economy and "real" jobs, fall back on what they can. That's where the need for larger families apparently comes in. I heard a similar thing on a CNN broadcast earlier today and wondered then about whose "voice" is being heard. On the broadcast it was a male's supporting something like a "resistance-to-westernization" polemic while: 1) using western technology, 2) dressed (self-wrapped) as a westerner, while some film clip presented the "female Islamic voice" at prayer in traditional dress...sorta makes me wonder how sincere this "resistance" really is... Finally, and I apologize for such a lengthy post, I appreciate Pamela's note regarding the concept of "overpopulation." It is the type of critical thinking comment that I constantly want to evoke from my students and collegues...One of the nice things (Pamela's remarks) about being on this list... adios from the land of neon armadilloes dancing to the zydeco...hal quigleyh@cs4.lamar.edu From dhenwood@panix.com Tue Sep 6 07:13:58 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Tue Sep 6 07:13:57 1994 Received: from esf.Colorado.EDU (esf.Colorado.EDU [128.138.173.17]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id HAA21519 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 07:13:57 -0600 Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by esf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id HAA09549 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 07:15:17 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA18542 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for Multiple recipients of list ); Tue, 6 Sep 1994 09:15:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 09:15:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: re: population/fertility To: Behan Pamela Cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Sep 1994, Behan Pamela wrote: > > Lastly, Doug's message raises a number of issues. One on my mind > recently is: What do we mean by "overpopulated?" > > Can a town, or region, or nation be overpopulated, or only the > whole planet? Is the definition a matter of overcrowding, or a balance > between resources and people? If the resources of a country are being > used to grow crops for export, while the people of that country go hungry, > is the country overpopulated, or exploited? Can a rich country, which > uses far more of the world's resources than it provides, be overpopulated? > Does a high birth rate always translate into overpopulation, or is it the > distribution of resources that primarily determines what we call > "over-populated?" > I think it's clear that overpopulation is a relative concept, and that it does little good to confuse the count of human beings with ecological damage. The US is thinly populated by world standards, and our cities are among the least densely populated in the world - yet we hog resources like there's no tomorrow. In fact, the very thinness of settlement is a factor in our irresponsible resource use, as we drive everywhere instead of walking or using public transit or bicycles as residents of more thickly settled regions do. Despite a lot of high-sounding rhetoric about "empowerment of women," I think many US population-suppressors would like to shift the burden of ecological adjustment onto the poor, and ignore the stink in our own backyard. I did some simple regressions last night based on data in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report. I'm no statistician, so my technique may not be shatterproof, but it sure looks like income distribution plays an important part in the rate of population growth - specifically countries with small middle classes are likely to have faster rates of pop growth than those with larger ones (as measured by the share of income going to the middle 60% of the population). The middle's share seems more important than the bottom 20%'s share. But of course the World Bank and the US government punish countries that attempt income redistribution. Doug Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) From roper@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Sep 6 08:38:02 MDT 1994 >From roper@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Sep 6 08:38:02 1994 Received: (from roper@localhost) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id IAA23352; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 08:38:01 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 08:38:01 -0600 From: ROPER DON Message-Id: <199409061438.IAA23352@csf.Colorado.EDU> To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: re: population/fertility Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 07:14:49 -0600 Reply-To: dhenwood@panix.com I think it's clear that overpopulation is a relative concept, and that it does little good to confuse the count of human beings with ecological damage. The US is thinly populated by world standards, and our cities are among the least densely populated in the world - yet we hog resources like there's no tomorrow. In fact, the very thinness of settlement is a factor in our irresponsible resource use, as we drive everywhere instead of walking or using public transit or bicycles as residents of more thickly settled regions do. Despite a lot of high-sounding rhetoric about "empowerment of women," I think many US population-suppressors would like to shift the burden of ecological adjustment onto the poor, and ignore the stink in our own backyard. I suppose I'm a "population-suppressor" but I would like to shift the burden of adjustment onto the rich, like there are too many rich folks, it seems to me. The point that the US is "thinly populated by world standards" is, of course, consistent, with the view that it is overpopulated by ecological standards. Henwood (and many others) want to focus on the irresponsible-resource-use of the rich and persons like myself want to focus on the number-of-rich-people. I would ask the question "which focus is more useful?" That raises the question, "useful for what?" with an obvious answer "for solving/addressing the ecological problem/crisis." Is it more useful to focus on the birth rates among the rich or other behavior of the rich in order to address the ecological problem? I.e., which focus is more likely to have the greatest payoff? Or, if one thinks that "we" aren't going to have much of a macro impact, which focus is going to yield greatest insight to predict? If one thinks about predictions, then I suggest that the focus on fertility and birth rates will yield greater insight than focusing on their/our irresponsible behavior however outrageous it might seem. Focusing, for example, on the growth of the gay movement will, I think, give greater insight about our environmental future than focusing on the irresponsible resource use of the affluent. I'm really posing a question and submitting my view on it. The question I'm posing is 'how does one decide whether to focus on fertility vs other behavior of the rich? ' If not usefulness for effecting macro change and/or insight for prediction, how else might one decide which perspective to adopt? ... don roper From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Sep 6 12:51:46 MDT 1994 >From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Sep 6 12:51:45 1994 Received: from sgigate.sgi.com (sgigate.SGI.COM [192.82.208.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA01523 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 12:51:42 -0600 Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay.sgi.com [192.26.51.36]) by sgigate.sgi.com (940519.SGI.8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id LAA13701; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 11:53:02 -0700 Received: from towel.wpd.sgi.com by relay.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @sgigate.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA08948; Tue, 6 Sep 94 11:52:58 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA08074; Tue, 6 Sep 94 11:52:53 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9409061152.ZM8072@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 11:52:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: Doug Henwood "re: population/fertility" (Sep 6, 7:14) References: Mabell: 415.390.4347 Ddial Xface: FFFF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF(modulo zed) 64 bits o' black Personal_Life: Virtually Virtuous Mime.Audio: MmmwwoooweeeeEEEoooweeeeeOOOO [makes you feel like you're RIGHT there!] Pabell: 004 000 008dot005 005 009dot008 007 007 000(sub9) Ohhnoooo: It's not poetry, it's Boot PROM code! Oops: Iobject!Iobject! Geek_Alert: I once spoke to Kibo (over e-mail!) X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.0S.1026 26oct93 MediaMail) To: Subject: Re: population/fertility Cc: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Doug: On Sep 6, 7:14, Doug Henwood wrote: > Subject: re: population/fertility > > The US is thinly populated by world standards, and our cities are > among the least densely populated in the world - yet we hog resources > like there's no tomorrow. You're conflating two unconnected phenomena: urban population density, and resource use ("hog," to use your malaprop phrase, since "hogging" refers to storage without profitable use, an option not likely to be exercised were there no tomorrow). On the same subject, how do you suggest we address the astronomical overuse of Third World resources at our nation's universities? (RnfrKnya, etc.) > In fact, the very thinness of settlement is a > factor in our irresponsible resource use, as we drive everywhere instead > of walking or using public transit or bicycles as residents of more > thickly settled regions do. A curious, if somewhat baroque, description of the problem. Perhaps we should adopt the Chinese solution, constructing human warehouses like Peking in which only the superrich can afford to drive cars, and we can all start pedalling 45-pound iron bicycles (hmmm, on second thought...) to work through the smog. Or raise taxes on gas to $3/gallon, once again humbling the "underclass" (whatever that is). > Despite a lot of high-sounding rhetoric about > "empowerment of women," I think many US population-suppressors would like > to shift the burden of ecological adjustment onto the poor, and ignore > the stink in our own backyard. "Think" based on what? I "think" there's a lot of knee-jerk thinking going on here, with little statistical basis-in-proof. > > I did some simple regressions last night based on data in the World > Bank's 1994 World Development Report. I'm no statistician, so my > technique may not be shatterproof, but it sure looks like income > distribution plays an important part in the rate of population growth - > specifically countries with small middle classes are likely to have > faster rates of pop growth than those with larger ones (as measured by > the share of income going to the middle 60% of the population). The > middle's share seems more important than the bottom 20%'s share. But of > course the World Bank and the US government punish countries that attempt > income redistribution. Controlling for every other extant variable? --Joe -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich Tales of Silicon Valley {Internal access only, unless you can bust the firewall} Flatland: joeh@sgi.com Rotary dial: 415.390.4347 DTMF:SameAsAbove BLM Locator:Building8Lower SnailMail:MS/535, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mt. View, CA 94043 Kill all smileys :> From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Sep 6 13:04:49 MDT 1994 >From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Sep 6 13:04:48 1994 Received: from sgigate.sgi.com (sgigate.SGI.COM [192.82.208.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id NAA01800 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 13:04:43 -0600 Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay.sgi.com [192.26.51.36]) by sgigate.sgi.com (940519.SGI.8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id MAA15091; Tue, 6 Sep 1994 12:06:02 -0700 Received: from towel.wpd.sgi.com by relay.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @sgigate.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA09463; Tue, 6 Sep 94 12:06:00 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA08108; Tue, 6 Sep 94 12:04:40 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9409061204.ZM8106@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 12:04:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: ROPER DON "re: population/fertility" (Sep 6, 8:38) References: <199409061438.IAA23352@csf.Colorado.EDU> Mabell: 415.390.4347 Ddial Xface: FFFF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF(modulo zed) 64 bits o' black Personal_Life: Virtually Virtuous Mime.Audio: MmmwwoooweeeeEEEoooweeeeeOOOO [makes you feel like you're RIGHT there!] Pabell: 004 000 008dot005 005 009dot008 007 007 000(sub9) Ohhnoooo: It's not poetry, it's Boot PROM code! Oops: Iobject!Iobject! Geek_Alert: I once spoke to Kibo (over e-mail!) X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.0S.1026 26oct93 MediaMail) To: Subject: Re: population/fertility Cc: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Okay, let's all go back to being poor and starving in Calcutta. My, wasn't *that* fun! On Sep 6, 8:38, ROPER DON wrote: > Subject: re: population/fertility > > I suppose I'm a "population-suppressor" but I would like to shift the > burden of adjustment onto the rich, like there are too many rich > folks, it seems to me. Please define "rich" -- anyone making more money than you're earning, or do you include yourself in the category? And on what basis do you define it as a "rich versus poor" problem-- simplism of thought? I submit that, like the floral denudation of Nepal, you have to judge each case on its individual merits. > Henwood (and many others) want > to focus on the irresponsible-resource-use of the rich and persons > like myself want to focus on the number-of-rich-people. > <>-- End of excerpt from ROPER DON Focus on "the number-of-rich-people" to do what with them? My point is, why not deal with individual people as individuals, not as arbitrarily-affiliated members of arbitrarily-concocted classes. I mean, that's what scholastic deconstruction is all about, right? --Joe -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich Tales of Silicon Valley {Internal access only, unless you can bust the firewall} Flatland: joeh@sgi.com Rotary dial: 415.390.4347 DTMF:SameAsAbove BLM Locator:Building8Lower SnailMail:MS/535, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mt. View, CA 94043 Kill all smileys :> From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Wed Sep 7 13:47:23 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Wed Sep 7 13:47:22 1994 Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id NAA03353 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 1994 13:47:22 -0600 Received: from taweret.colorado.edu (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id NAA15005 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 1994 13:48:45 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id NAA11781; Wed, 7 Sep 1994 13:48:04 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 13:48:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela To: PPN List Subject: Re: Fertility Modeling In-Reply-To: <9409060518.AA09837@cs4.lamar.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Sep 1994, HAL D. QUIGLEY wrote: > Would it be possible to identify a dimension of the concept "religion"? > As a "gross" example, how about number of children (or even spacing) and > attendance? Church attendence certainly can be measured, but it may not capture the significant aspect of religiosity to fertility practices. That may be more adequately captured by a subjective measure, such as "the importance of religion in your life", "the importance of obeying God's will," or "the importance of obeying the Church's teachings." (This could easily be tested, however, to see which measure correlates most strongly with fertility.) However, that still leaves us with the problem of different religions having different teachings/beliefs/values on sexuality, contraception, the importance of children, male and female roles, etc. I don't believe that the differences between, say, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant, Judaic, Hindu and Confucian teachings affecting fertility can be captured on a linear scale; even if they could, however, they aren't taught or received in the same way in different regions & cultures. For instance, the figures showing how many Catholics use birth control, in spite of the Pope's position on contraception, varies from country to country.. >Or, historically, when a given religion emerged on a space > and compare to population/fertility reports? An interesting thought. Do we have fertility data before and after such changes? We may, around the Protestant reformation, but there were other important changes going on at the same time (i.e., industrialization and urbanization). Any ideas? > My thought here is that it may help to consider "whose" education..for > example, parents of the "progeny-producers". This consideration may help > position the concept "education" as a reasonable variable preceeding > income.. This makes sense to me. Controlling for parent's education would allow us to look at whether the relation between income and fertility is consistent within classes (therefore disappearing when controlling for subject's education), or a genuine effect of education itself. Any thoughts on this? Is this variable generally available for most countries? > > Finally, and I apologize for such a lengthy post, I appreciate > Pamela's note regarding the concept of "overpopulation." It is the type > of critical thinking comment that I constantly want to evoke from my > students and collegues... Thanks! And thanks to Joe for making my brain work, as well.... Pamela Behan From dhenwood@panix.com Sat Sep 10 10:29:38 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Sat Sep 10 10:29:37 1994 Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id KAA22386 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 10:29:36 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA05735 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ppn@csf.colorado.edu); Sat, 10 Sep 1994 12:31:03 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 12:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: 1994-09-05 Vice President Speech at Population Development Conf (fwd) To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In case folks haven't seen this.... Doug Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 18:32-0400 From: The White House To: Clinton-Health-Care-Distribution@campaign92.org, Clinton-Economy-Distribution@campaign92.org, Clinton-News-Distribution@campaign92.org Subject: 1994-09-05 Vice President Speech at Population Development Conf THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 9, 1994 Remarks Prepared for Delivery by Vice President Al Gore International Conference on Population Development Cairo, Egypt Monday, September 5, 1994 Good morning. I am honored to join you as we begin one of the most important conferences ever held. On behalf of President Clinton and the people of the United States, I would like to first of all express my thanks and appreciation to our host, President Mubarak. His leadership has been marked by a continuing commitment to building a better future for his people, this region and the world. This conference is dedicated to help achieve the same ends. I can think of no better or more fitting setting than Cairo for the work we begin today. I would also like to thank Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali and Dr. Nafis Sadik for their inspired leadership in shepherding this conference from a concept to a reality. Allow me to also thank Prime Minister Brundtland and Prime Minister Bhutto for their leadership and their contributions to the world's efforts to deal with this vital issue. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the enormous contributions of government officials, non-governmental organization representatives, and private citizens toward addressing one of the greatest challenges -- and greatest opportunities -- of the coming century. We owe all of you who have been involved in this process a debt of gratitude. We would not be here today if we were not convinced that the rapid and unsustainable growth of human population was an issue of the utmost urgency. It took 10,000 generations for the world's population to reach two billion people. Yet over the past 50 years, we have gone from two billion to more than five and a half billion. And we are on a path to increase to nine or 10 billion over the next 50 years. Ten thousand generations to reach two billion and then in one human lifetime -- ours -- we leap from two billion toward 10 billion. These numbers are not by themselves the problem. But the startlingly new pattern they delineate is a symptom of a much larger and deeper spiritual challenge now facing humankind. Will we acknowledge our connections to one another or not? Will we accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices we make or not? Can we find ways to work together or will we insist on selfishly exploring the limits of human pride? How can we come to see in the faces of others our own hopes and dreams for the future? Why is it so hard to recognize that we are all part of something larger than ourselves? Of course these are timeless questions that have always characterized the human condition. But they now have a new urgency precisely because we have reached a new stage of human history -- a stage defined not just by the meteoric growth in human numbers, but also by the unprecedented Faustian powers of the new technologies we have acquired during these same 50 years -- technologies which not only bring us new benefits but also magnify the consequences of age-old behaviors to extremes that all too often exceed the wisdom we bring to our decisions to use them. For example, warfare is an ancient human habit -- but the invention of nuclear weapons so radically altered the consequences of this behavior that we were forced to find new ways of thinking about the relationship between nuclear states in order to avoid the use of these weapons. Similarly, the oceans have always been a source of food, but new technologies like 40- mile long driftnets coupled with sophisticated sonar equipment to precisely locate fish have severely depleted or seriously distressed every ocean fishery on our planet. Thus, we have begun to curtail the use of driftnets. But it is becoming increasingly clear that our margin for error is shrinking as the rapid growth of population is combined with huge and unsustainable levels of consumption in the developed countries, powerful new tools for exploiting the earth and each other, and a willful refusal to take responsibility for the future consequences of the choices we make. Economically, rapid population growth often contributes to the challenge of addressing persistent low wages, poverty and economic disparity. Population trends also challenge the ability of societies, economies and governments to make the investments they need in both human capital and infrastructure. At the level of the family, demographic trends have kept the world's investment in its children -- especially girls -- unacceptably low. For individuals, population growth and high fertility are closely linked to the poor health and diminished opportunities of millions upon millions of women, infants and children. And population pressures often put strains on hopes for stability at the national and international level. Look, for example at the 20 million refugees in our world who have no homes. The delegates to this conference have helped to create a widely shared understanding of these new realities. But what is truly remarkable about this conference is not only the unprecedented degree of consensus about the nature of the problem, but the degree of consensus about the nature of the solution. A real change has occurred during the last several years in the way most people in the world look at and understand this problem. And the change is part of a larger philosophical shift in the way most people have begun to think about many large problems. There used to be an automatic tendency -- especially in the developed world -- to think about the process of change in terms of single causes producing single effects. And thus, when searching for the way to solve a particular problem, however large, it seemed natural enough to search for the single most prominent "cause" of the problem and then address it forcefully. Many divisive arguments resulted between groups advocating the selection of different causes as the "primary" culprit deserving of full attention. Thus, when it became clear that new medical technologies were bringing dramatic declines in death rates but not in birth rates, many pioneers in the effort to address the population question settled on the notion that the lack of contraceptives was the primary problem and argued that making them widely available everywhere would produce the effect we desired -- the completion of the demographic transition with the achievement of low birth rates as well as low death rates. But as it became clear that contraception alone seldom led to the change nations were seeking to bring about, other single causes were afforded primary attention. For example, in the historic Bucharest conference 20 years ago, when thoughtful people noticed that most of the societies which had stabilized their population growth were wealthy, industrial and "developed", it seemed logical to conclude -- in the phrase common at the time -- "development is the best contraceptive." Meanwhile, some insights from developing countries were given insufficient attention. For example, some African leaders were arguing 30 years ago that "the most powerful contraceptive in the world is the confidence of parents that their children will survive." And in places like Kerala, in southwestern India, local leaders were making economic development more accessible by giving women as well as men access to education and high levels of literacy, while at the same time providing good child and maternal health care as well as widespread access to contraception. And in the process they found that their population growth rate fell to nearly zero. The world has also learned from developing countries that the wrong kind of rapid economic development -- the kind that is inequitable and destructive of traditional culture, the environment and human dignity -- can lead to the disorientation of society and a lessened ability to solve all problems -- including population. But here, at Cairo, there is a new and very widely shared consensus that no single one of these solutions is likely to be sufficient by itself to produce the pattern of change we are seeking. However, we also now agree that all of them together, when simultaneously present for a sufficient length of time, will reliably bring about a systemic change to low birth and death rates and a stabilized population. In this new consensus, equitable and sustainable development and population stabilization go together. The education and empowerment of women, high levels of literacy, the availability of contraception and quality health care: these factors are all crucial. They cannot be put off until development takes place; they must accompany it -- and indeed should be seen as part of the process by which development is hastened and made more likely. This holistic understanding is representative of the approach we must take in addressing other problems that cry out for attention. Recognizing connections and inter-relationships is one of the keys. For example, the future of developed countries is connected to the prospects of developing countries. It is partly for this reason that we in the United States wish to choose this occasion to affirm unequivocally all human rights, including the right to development. Let us be clear in acknowledging that persistent high levels of poverty in our world represent a principal cause of human suffering, environmental degradation, instability -- and rapid population growth. But the solution -- like the solution to the population challenge -- will not be found in any single simplistic answer. It will be found in a comprehensive approach that combines democracy, economic reform, low rates of inflation, low levels of corruption, sound environmental stewardship, free and open markets at home and access to markets in the developed countries. We must also acknowledge -- in developed and developing countries alike -- the connection between those of us alive today and the future generations that will inherit the results of the decisions we make. Indeed, a major part of the spiritual crisis we face in the modern world is rooted in our obstinate refusal to look beyond the immediacy of our own needs and wants and instead invest in the kind of future our children's children have a right to expect. And it should be obvious that we cannot solve this lost sense of connection to our future merely through appeals to reason and logic. Personally, I am convinced that the holistic solution we must seek is one that is rooted in faith and a commitment to basic human values of the kind enshrined in all of our major religious traditions and principles increasingly shared by men and women all around the world: *the central role of the family. *the importance of community. *the freedom of the human spirit. *the inherent dignity of every individual woman, man and child on this planet. *political, economic and religious freedom. *universal and inalienable human rights. Will we draw upon the richness of these shared principles and values as we embark on our efforts today, or will we allow ourselves to be divided by our differences. And there are, of course, differences that will be extremely difficult to ever fully resolve. For example, we are all well aware that views about abortion are as diverse among nations as among individuals. I want to be clear about the U.S. position on abortion so that there is no misunderstanding. We believe that making available the highest quality family planning and health care services will simultaneously respect women's own desires to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce population growth, and the rate of abortion. The United States Constitution guarantees every woman within our borders a right to choose an abortion, subject to limited and specific exceptions. We are committed to that principle. But let us take a false issue off the table: the United States does not seek to establish a new international right to abortion, and we do not believe that abortion should be encouraged as a method of family planning. We also believe that policymaking in these matters should be the province of each government, within the context of its own laws and national circumstances, and consistent with previously agreed human rights standards. In this context, we abhor and condemn coercion related to abortion or any other matters of reproduction. We believe that where abortion is permitted, it should be medically safe and that unsafe abortion is a matter of women's health that must be addressed. But as we acknowledge the few areas where full agreement among us is more difficult, let us strengthen our resolve to respect our differences and reach past them to create what the world might remember as the "spirit of Cairo" -- a shared and unshakable determination to lay the foundation for a future of hope and promise. This is the opening session. Each of us can play a crucial role in ensuring the success of this historic endeavor. The essential ingredient we all must bring to it is our commitment to make it work. The Scottish mountain climber W.H. Murray wrote early in this century: "Until one is committed there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative...there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too." I saw this truth in operation earlier this year at the southern end of this continent when I represented my country at the inauguration of Nelson Mandela. As he raised his hand to take the oath, I suddenly remembered a Sunday morning four years earlier when he was released from prison and my youngest child, then seven, joined me to watch live television coverage of the event and asked why the entire world was watching this person regain his freedom. When I explained as best I could, my son again asked , "Why?" After a series of "whys", I began to feel frustrated -- but I suddenly realized what a rare privilege it was to explain to a child the existence of such an extraordinary positive event when I, like other parents, had so often been confronted with the burden of explaining to my children the existence of evil and terrible tragedies and injustices in our world. So as President Mandela completed his oath, I resolved that I would spend the next several days in South Africa trying to understand how this wonderful development had occurred. And what I found -- in addition to the well-known courage and vision of both Mandela and DeKlerk -- was the key ingredient that had not received emphasis in the news coverage: ordinary men and women of all ethnic backgrounds and all walks of life quietly had made up their minds that they were going to reach across the barriers that divided them and join hands to create a future much brighter than any they had been told was possible to even imagine. We here today face the same choice and the same opportunity: will we give to our children's children the burden of explaining to their children the reason why unspeakable tragedies that could have been avoided occur in their lives? Or will we give them the privilege and joy of explaining the occurrence of unusually positive developments -- the foundations for which were laid here at this place in this time? The choice is ours. Let us resolve to make it well. From Kim_Lindblade@mukla.gn.apc.org Mon Sep 12 08:20:03 MDT 1994 >From Kim_Lindblade@mukla.gn.apc.org Mon Sep 12 08:20:02 1994 Received: from gn.apc.org (gn.apc.org [193.37.35.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id IAA26830 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 1994 08:19:57 -0600 From: Kim_Lindblade@mukla.gn.apc.org Received: by gn.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.14 ) id AA27996; Mon, 12 Sep 94 15:21:12 BST Received: by f501.n2.z2.gnfido.fidonet.org (rfmail 1.85.1.4/gn) id AA27458; Mon, 12 Sep 94 15:21:10 +0000 (BST) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 15:40:00 +0000 Reply-To: Kim_Lindblade@mukla.gn.apc.org Received: by ; @19940912.151043 GEcho/386 1.10+ Received: by f70.n254.z2.gnfido.fidonet.org 2:254/70 with MsgTrack; Mon Sep 12 1994 at 14:09 UTC Received: by ; @19940912.100144 GEcho 1.02+ Message-Id: <7c8f80b0@p151.f1.n7321.z5.gnfido.fidonet.org> X-Flags: private X-Fidonet-Comment-To: Kim_Lindblade@p151.f1.n7321.z5.gnfido.fidonet.org X-Fsc-Pid: FM 2.02 To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu As this is the first time I have entered this forum, let me briefly introduce myself - I'm a University of Michigan Population-Environment Fellow working for CARE in southwestern Uganda. CARE has a conservation/development project and a family planning project working in the same area. They thought that it would be a good opportunity to look at population and environment issues, both theoretically and programmatically. Pamela's comments on the definition of overpopulation were interesting. Conservation agencies are often afraid now to bring in population when they work with communities for fear that it will be controversial or they will appear coercive. We are finding in our own work that communities already have clear perceptions of the effects of population growth on their environment. Although this is not surprising, it is rare to find projects or studies that ask local people what, if any, interaction exists between population and environment in their area. Although it would be wrong for an outside agency to decide whether an area is overpopulated, or that population growth or density is causing local environmental problems, it is quite legitimate for a community to analyze their resource situation and its effect on their children and decide whether or not they have exceeded their current carrying capacity. In addition, communities should then be allowed to decide how they want to deal with such situations. In the area of Uganda in which we work, people have found many solutions, including more intensive farming, land consolidation, family planning and migration. Our major focus now is to develop ways to explore linkages between population and environment with local communities, moving from a problem-oriented perspective to a looking for opportunities in the future. If this sounds very theoretical, it's not, and I'd love to find people who have been involved in similar situations. Please be aware that my e-mail is not regular as I am only able to access the system once a week. Kim Lindblade From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Mon Sep 12 16:08:37 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Mon Sep 12 16:08:36 1994 Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id QAA13411 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 1994 16:08:36 -0600 Received: from taweret.colorado.edu (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id QAA22010 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 1994 16:10:05 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id QAA14996; Mon, 12 Sep 1994 16:09:23 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 16:09:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela To: PPN List Subject: "overpopulation" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII If anything, it seems to me that Doug, Don, Kim, and Al Gore's messages should remind us that the meaning of "overpopulation" depends on your interests and your position. Environmental concerns focus on resource use, which directs our attention to the resource users - the developed, rather than the underdeveloped nations. This is NOT the focus of the international population conference, although it does get passing mention. Although I share this concern, I'd say that it's a fairly privileged one - for those of us who don't have to worry about our next meal. Paradoxically, however, it's probably also the most contraversial and far-sighted - challenging the developed world to reduce its consumption, waste, and sense of entitlement to all the world's resources, and the underdeveloped world to behave more wisely than the developed nations ever have. Community concerns vary, but in the Third World are likely to focus on the availability of food for everyone, and the limitation of the size of a community to not outstrip its food supply. That is, a balance between resources and population growth defines population concerns. Kim also reminds us that migration is related to population concerns - a local solution to perceived imbalance, which (by the way) Europe used extensively in its own period of fast population growth. In my own, privileged U.S. community, there is concern about having reasonable jobs for everyone, and about the quality of life deteriorating if too many people move in. That is, there is a perception of an absolute limit to the size of "community," some resources being seen as finite - and "too many people" is related to the jobs & wages available. The relation between jobs and population size, by the way, was very much a part of Malthus' definition of overpopulation. Crowdedness (people-per-square-whatever) doesn't even come into many definitions, although it often seems to be a big factor in informal use of the term. If your concern is about the future, however, this concept may nicely summarize the impossibility of the earth supporting infinite numbers of humans. Finally, birth rates often are used to imply overpopulation, although any real connection between the two depends on the current population, existing primarily in a long-term sense, rather than the immediate sense in which it gets used. (I often think that this definition creeps into the discussion in "us" versus "them" contexts, as when First World writers are feeling threatened by the potential demand for more of the world's resources by the Third World. See the February 1994 ATLANTIC MONTHLY cover article.) Here's an interesting quote to chew on, from the FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW, Hong Kong: "The U.N. plan defines the population 'problem' in terms of yellow and brown peoples. No one goes around complaining that there are too many Dutchmen, though with 450 people per square kilometer the Netherlands is more than three times as crowded as China. Surely this (Asian) region's unprecedented growth demonstrates that those in undeveloped lands have minds as well as mouths, and that these minds - once unshackled and allowed to realize their potential - are at least as capable of contributing to the world pie as anyone else's. "The irony today is that Cairo's call to lower birth rates comes at a time when Asia's leading economies are suffering from LABOR SHORTAGES while Europe, with its plummeting birth rates, finds itself plagued by UNEMPLOYMENT...." (Emphasis added.) Pamela Behan From dhenwood@panix.com Wed Sep 14 08:23:19 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Wed Sep 14 08:23:18 1994 Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id IAA03951 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:23:17 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA25502 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ppn@csf.colorado.edu); Wed, 14 Sep 1994 10:24:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 10:24:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: 1994-09-13 VP Gore on Close of Population and Development Conf (fwd) To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII More from Big Al. Doug Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:39-0400 From: The White House To: Clinton-Economy-Distribution@campaign92.org, Clinton-News-Distribution@campaign92.org, Clinton-Foreign-Distribution@campaign92.org Subject: 1994-09-13 VP Gore on Close of Population and Development Conf THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 13, 1994 STATEMENT BY U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE ON THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT The approval of the Programme of Action in Cairo today marks a tremendous achievement, both for the delegations present but more importantly for the world's future. I want to commend the delegations for their work and their dedication in achieving a consensus which although difficult in some areas has created a new framework for action on population and development issues. For the first time in a UN conference dealing with population issues, all participating nations have joined in agreement on a large portion of the Programme of Action. I wish to especially commend the Government of Egypt and President Mubarak. Not only a wonderful and gracious host for the conference, Egypt was also a key actor in negotiations surrounding some of the ICPD's most difficult issues. In addition, I wish to thank the United Nations, and especially the ICPD Secretary General, Dr. Nafis Sadik, for her untiring and successful efforts in building consensus in Cairo. I also want to specifically thank the United States' delegation, led by Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth. The United States, under his leadership, was able to contribute effectively to bringing the world to this important consensus. Finally, the NGO community throughout the world, and I would add especially women's groups, have played an historic role in helping to bring their knowledge and expertise into the debate and moving the ICPD from a concept at Rio to a reality at Cairo. The Programme of Action is better informed for it. This Programme of Action is a watershed in defining a global approach toward stabilizing the world's population --encompassing increased availability of family planning, sustainable economic development, the empowerment of women to include enhance educational opportunities, and a reduction in infant and child mortality. All of these are important goals in their own right that work best when joined together into a comprehensive program. No single solution will be sufficient by itself to produce the patterns of change so badly needed. But together, over a sufficient length of time, a broad-based strategy will help us achieve a stabilized population and thereby improve the quality of life for our children. The Programme of Action just adopted in Cairo offers us a plan that will work and that has the full support of the United States. From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Tue Sep 20 12:38:49 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Tue Sep 20 12:38:48 1994 Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA16328 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:38:48 -0600 Received: from taweret.colorado.edu (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA13694 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:40:31 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id MAA11867; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:40:31 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:40:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela To: PPN List Subject: RE: "overpopulation" In-Reply-To: <199409161634.KAA23467@osiris.Colorado.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 16 Sep 1994, George Alter, History & PIRT wrote: > Pamela, > > I was distressed to find you citing with > approval the article below from the Far Eastern > Economic Review. I have been reading the documents > from the Cairo Conference as they appear on the UN > POPIN Gopher server, and this characterization does > not fit what I see at all. The documents that I have > been reading do not define "the population 'problem' > in terms of yellow and brown peoples." Instead, > they point to poverty and inequality within and between > nations as the fundamental problem. > > In fact, the remarkable thing about the Cairo plan > is the prominence that it gives to empowering women > and implementing programs of reproductive health > that go beyond simply family planning. > > I rather expected you to support the direction in which > the Cairo conference moved the debate. > > George Alter > Indiana University George, I did not intend to imply approval of the whole message, only to draw the list's attention to its reasoning, especially of the last point: > "The irony today is that Cairo's call to lower > birth rates comes at a time when Asia's leading economies > are suffering from LABOR SHORTAGES while Europe, with > its plummeting birth rates, finds itself plagued by > UNEMPLOYMENT...." (Emphasis added.) I do indeed approve of the direction in which the Cairo conference and U.N. plan have moved the debate. The U.N. plan is very progressive, but may yet be reversed by the reaction that has just started to form. I am not convinced that most of the people of the developed nations have given up thinking of the population 'problem' in terms of 'yellow and brown peoples.' When it comes to asking the First World to live within a sustainable level of comfort/technology that can be shared by everyone on the planet, I expect a LOT more racism and classism to surface. The interesting point in the quotation (to me) is the difficulty of resolving short and long-term labor needs along with population pressures, especially within a market system. Fertility is determined by families, within their ability to control it (education, contraception access, etc.), by their ability to forsee the near future for themselves and their children - fairly short-term, but not nearly as short-term as market needs. If there are no available jobs as the children grow up, they - or the whole family - are likely to migrate to somewhere there are (or are rumored to be) jobs. When these choices don't fit the quickly changing labor market, or the jobs available don't pay well enough to support the people depending on them, people die. The labor market, these days, can change - or move - a lot faster than people can adjust their fertility or migrate to meet it. It would be a complex problem even if economies were carefully planned to meet human needs. A mechanism like the market, which bears no relation to human needs, can make it much worse. Jobs, in a market system, may well be moved AWAY from areas with lots of unemployed workers, to areas where labor is becoming short, but is cheap. This encourages families to increase their fertility in the "cheap labor" areas - in conflict with the long-term needs of the region, nation and planet. I know that the "invisible hand" is supposed to take care of all this. Just think, however, what that means in a situation where the developed countries have high unemployment and developing countries begin to experience labor shortages. (That is, where companies continue to move their manufacturing or service work to Third World nations, as they do now.) The market "should" result in wages dropping in developed nations, and rising in developing nations, until it's as profitable to manufacture in the First as the Third World. Then the number of jobs would rise in developed nations, unemployment abate, and the number of jobs drop in developing nations, easing the labor shortage. Eventually (if resources don't run out), general prosperity should rise. These shifts would first, however, result in far lower wages, and a far lower standard of living, for First World working people (not to mention greatly increased inequality). This would be so politically unpopular that it's not hard to foresee riots, then wars, to prevent it. (As a matter of fact, haven't we already fought a war or two to assure our access to Third World oil & other resources?) How do we get out of this connundrum? And how do we keep the population debate moving in a progressive direction? Pamela Behan From ALTER@ucs.indiana.edu Wed Sep 21 09:54:14 MDT 1994 >From ALTER@ucs.indiana.edu Wed Sep 21 09:54:14 1994 Received: from geneva.ucs.indiana.edu (portal.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.4.21]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id JAA19760 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 1994 09:54:11 -0600 Message-Id: <199409211554.JAA19760@csf.Colorado.EDU> Received: from PRISM.DECnet by geneva.ucs.indiana.edu (5.65c+/9.6jsm) id AA01472; Wed, 21 Sep 1994 10:55:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 10:55:54 EST From: "George Alter, History & PIRT" X-To: PO%"ppn@csf.colorado.edu" Subject: "overpopulation" To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Pamela, I'm glad to hear that you have a more positive view of the Cairo conference than your earlier message implied. There are certainly grounds for witholding a final judgement until we see the actual programs that grow out of the conference. However, the rest of your message has me quite mystified. Surely, the writer in the Asian Economic Review was referring to labor shortages in "Asia's leading economies" of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. These are hardly "developing" countries, anymore, so your somewhat confusing comments on international labor markets may be based on a misunderstanding. I would be more interested to learn what you base some of your demographic speculations on. For example, you write > ... If there are no available jobs as the children grow up, > they - or the whole family - are likely to migrate to somewhere there are > (or are rumored to be) jobs. When these choices don't fit the quickly > changing labor market, or the jobs available don't pay well enough to > support the people depending on them, people die. What people die? What are they dying from? Are you talking about a demographic mechanism, or do you have in mind some kind of political unrest? You also speculate that people will have higher fertility in the expectation of better jobs. > ... Jobs, in a market system, may well be > moved AWAY from areas with lots of unemployed workers, to areas where > labor is becoming short, but is cheap. This encourages families to > increase their fertility in the "cheap labor" areas - in conflict with > the long-term needs of the region, nation and planet. The implication of this statement (perhaps, unintended) is that economic development in poor countries should be limited, because it might increase their birth rates. Economic demographers have been looking for evidence that people increase their fertility in response to economic opportunities for at least 30 years, and the results are very meager. Any (presumed) positive effects of higher incomes are always overwhelmed by other negative effects on fertility that are correlated with higher incomes. I am not aware of any evidence that economic development in poor countries leads to higher fertility. Do you have something specific in mind? The usual argument is that economic development promotes smaller families, and most of the debate in demography has been over the possibility of reducing fertility in places where incomes are not rising. I support the goal of moving the debate in a progressive direction, but I would like to see a debate that is grounded in the evidence of demographic behavior that we do already have. Opponents of the Cairo conference spread a number of half-truths and distortions about the claims and findings of demographic research. I think that we should be careful that loose and unsupported speculations are not open to misrepresentation and exploitation by those with quite different agendas. George Alter ============================================= From: PO1::"behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU" 20-SEP-1994 13:47:53.50 To: Multiple recipients of list CC: Subj: RE: "overpopulation" On Fri, 16 Sep 1994, George Alter, History & PIRT wrote: > Pamela, > > I was distressed to find you citing with > approval the article below from the Far Eastern > Economic Review. I have been reading the documents > from the Cairo Conference as they appear on the UN > POPIN Gopher server, and this characterization does > not fit what I see at all. The documents that I have > been reading do not define "the population 'problem' > in terms of yellow and brown peoples." Instead, > they point to poverty and inequality within and between > nations as the fundamental problem. > > In fact, the remarkable thing about the Cairo plan > is the prominence that it gives to empowering women > and implementing programs of reproductive health > that go beyond simply family planning. > > I rather expected you to support the direction in which > the Cairo conference moved the debate. > > George Alter > Indiana University George, I did not intend to imply approval of the whole message, only to draw the list's attention to its reasoning, especially of the last point: > "The irony today is that Cairo's call to lower > birth rates comes at a time when Asia's leading economies > are suffering from LABOR SHORTAGES while Europe, with > its plummeting birth rates, finds itself plagued by > UNEMPLOYMENT...." (Emphasis added.) I do indeed approve of the direction in which the Cairo conference and U.N. plan have moved the debate. The U.N. plan is very progressive, but may yet be reversed by the reaction that has just started to form. I am not convinced that most of the people of the developed nations have given up thinking of the population 'problem' in terms of 'yellow and brown peoples.' When it comes to asking the First World to live within a sustainable level of comfort/technology that can be shared by everyone on the planet, I expect a LOT more racism and classism to surface. The interesting point in the quotation (to me) is the difficulty of resolving short and long-term labor needs along with population pressures, especially within a market system. Fertility is determined by families, within their ability to control it (education, contraception access, etc.), by their ability to forsee the near future for themselves and their children - fairly short-term, but not nearly as short-term as market needs. If there are no available jobs as the children grow up, they - or the whole family - are likely to migrate to somewhere there are (or are rumored to be) jobs. When these choices don't fit the quickly changing labor market, or the jobs available don't pay well enough to support the people depending on them, people die. The labor market, these days, can change - or move - a lot faster than people can adjust their fertility or migrate to meet it. It would be a complex problem even if economies were carefully planned to meet human needs. A mechanism like the market, which bears no relation to human needs, can make it much worse. Jobs, in a market system, may well be moved AWAY from areas with lots of unemployed workers, to areas where labor is becoming short, but is cheap. This encourages families to increase their fertility in the "cheap labor" areas - in conflict with the long-term needs of the region, nation and planet. I know that the "invisible hand" is supposed to take care of all this. Just think, however, what that means in a situation where the developed countries have high unemployment and developing countries begin to experience labor shortages. (That is, where companies continue to move their manufacturing or service work to Third World nations, as they do now.) The market "should" result in wages dropping in developed nations, and rising in developing nations, until it's as profitable to manufacture in the First as the Third World. Then the number of jobs would rise in developed nations, unemployment abate, and the number of jobs drop in developing nations, easing the labor shortage. Eventually (if resources don't run out), general prosperity should rise. These shifts would first, however, result in far lower wages, and a far lower standard of living, for First World working people (not to mention greatly increased inequality). This would be so politically unpopular that it's not hard to foresee riots, then wars, to prevent it. (As a matter of fact, haven't we already fought a war or two to assure our access to Third World oil & other resources?) How do we get out of this connundrum? And how do we keep the population debate moving in a progressive direction? Pamela Behan From dhenwood@panix.com Mon Sep 26 07:30:28 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Mon Sep 26 07:30:26 1994 Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id HAA29756; Mon, 26 Sep 1994 07:30:25 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA08249 (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:32:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:32:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: Norplant Documentary (fwd) To: femisa@csf.colorado.edu, ppn@csf.colorado.edu, ecofem@csf.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sorry for any duplication, but this seemed multiply relavent. Doug Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 23:28:19 -0400 (EDT) From: PNEWS To: pnews@igc.apc.org Subject: Norplant Documentary [PNEWS.D] From: ALEX2051@delphi.com DOCUMENTARY ABOUT NORPLANT: SKIN DEEP We are independent video producers currently working on a documentary SKIN DEEP, Norplant and its Effects on Reproductive Rights and Informed Consent. Norplant is the hormonal contraceptive that is implanted in a woman's upper under arm and lasts up to 5 years. Norplant was approved by the FDA in 1990. Norplant is a primary example of the new generation of reproductive technologies. These new contraceptive technologies, such as Depo-Provera or the anti- fertility vaccine, are being developed and heavily promoted by various components of the health care industry. These 'devices' will dramatically affect the lives of millions of women throughout the world. In some cases their impact will be irreversible. As Norplant use has become more widespread, a growing number of healthcare professionals and legal experts are beginning to say that some medical practitioners minimize information about Norplant's contraindications and side-effects and disregard important medical and public health policy concerns. We have been researching and gathering material for the project for over a year and very interested in speaking with women who have had personal experience with Norplant. (Please contact us via e-mail!) As independent producers (who at this time are not receiving any network, cable or PBS funding ) we are constantly in the position of having to fundraise. Up to this point we have received small grants which are not enough to fund a project of this magnitude! So we are also looking for donations (tax deductible) and/or suggestions of foundations, people etc. that might possibly make a contribution to this important project. We would be happy to give interested people more information about this documentary if they contact us at the e-mail address listed below. Thanks, Alexandra alex2051@delphi.com From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Tue Sep 27 12:47:48 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Tue Sep 27 12:47:47 1994 Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA14179 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:47:47 -0600 Received: from taweret.colorado.edu (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA09531; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:49:41 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id MAA13496; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:49:41 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:49:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela To: "George Alter, History & PIRT" cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "overpopulation" In-Reply-To: <199409211554.JAA19760@csf.Colorado.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 21 Sep 1994, George Alter, History & PIRT wrote: > Surely, the writer in the Asian Economic Review was > referring to labor shortages in "Asia's leading economies" > of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. > These are hardly "developing" countries, anymore, > so your somewhat confusing comments on international > labor markets may be based on a misunderstanding. I may indeed be confounding two phenomena. The article, as quoted in my local newspaper, did not mention which countries are experiencing underemployment. I know that central Africa has experienced underemployment, with too many of its adult workers having migrated to the coasts, where the work was supposed to be. Perhaps Asia is not experiencing this dynamic; any experts on labor in Asia out there? > > I would be more interested to learn what you base > some of your demographic speculations on. > For example, you write > > > ... If there are no available jobs as the children grow up, > > they - or the whole family - are likely to migrate to somewhere there are > > (or are rumored to be) jobs. When these choices don't fit the quickly > > changing labor market, or the jobs available don't pay well enough to > > support the people depending on them, people die. > > What people die? What are they dying from? I'm talking about the fact that most nations have little or no safety net for people without the income to support themselves. In developing nations, particularly, formal jobs often do not exist in sufficient numbers to support all those who need to work. An "informal" job sector grows up around this need - everything from shining shoes to running errands to showing tourists around. Not everyone makes it in such a system, however - that's why Third World cities often have enormous slums, high rates of malnutrition, and high death rates from malnutrition-related illnesses. Even in the U.S., people die from lack of work/income - their benefits run out, they lose their homes or have to chose between food and heat, and may die of starvation or exposure. Minimum wage work/income is somewhat better, but not much; you still find people choosing between paying their rent and having enough to eat, or using heat, or getting a winter coat. Low income shortens the life span, and increases the years spent in poor health. Recent news articles mentioned that an unemployment rate of less than 6% is considered unhealthy in the U.S., which takes steps to keep it that high; if we deliberately are keeping people unemployed, how can we blame them for not having jobs? > > You also speculate that people will have higher > fertility in the expectation of better jobs. > Not exactly. I'm discussing the impossibility of people adjusting their fertility to meet labor market needs. The time it takes to raise a child is simply too long to anticipate the labor situation; people CANNOT adjust their fertility to fit the labor market. If there is to be a fit, it must come from jobs being created or moved to fit human needs. Incidentally, I believe that the U.S. provides some of the best evidence of fertility responding to good & bad times. Fertility dropped considerably during the Depression, and the post-WWII "baby boom" appears to have been a response to the booming U.S. economy, widespread upward mobility, and optimism about the future. > The implication of this statement (perhaps, unintended) > is that economic development in poor countries should > be limited, because it might increase their birth rates. I certainly don't intend such an implication. In fact, I'd favor the developed countries voluntarily cutting down on their use of both non-renewable and renewable resources (even if it lowers our standard of living), and doing more to equalize development, opportunities for women, and standards of living all over the world. Then we could get down to the business of creating a sustainable and livable future for all the world's people. At the moment, however, such a project is impossible to imagine politically. We need to solve several problems in order to reach a place where such a project can even be realistically discussed. I think that the recent population conference made a good start. xxxxxxx We have a lot of list members out there, just reading these opinions and ideas. What are your concerns and thoughts? Pamela Behan