You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-14-ask-umbras-book-club-why-dont-we-talk-about-population/
Obstacles to discussing population policy
Progressives, liberals, environmentalists, social activists, since sometime
in the 80's, have been reluctant to address population for some of the
following reasons (or so it appears to me):
We do not want to engage with conservative, fundamentalist, religious
opposition to birth control
We are embarrassed to suggest that people in poorer countries who have
large families should lower their birthrates (and so appear racist,
ethnicist, and hypocritical because of our own high consumption rates)
We are afraid that population policy requires draconiam measures (as in
China)
We are reassured that there is (has been) enough food produced on the world
for everyone, and that the main problem is unjust access to it.
We are convinced, from past experience, that only development, education of
women and job opportunities will lower birth rates
We shy away from the pessimistic opinion that only famine, plague and war
can make a dent in overpopulation.
We cannot accept the ungenerous position that poor immigrants should be
kept out of developed countries because of their high birth rate, suspecting
racism.
We may not want to think about our own and families' need and love for
children, what joy they give us, and that a low child society may be hard on
some.
There is also the capitalist economists position that economic growth is
imperative, including and partly driven by population growth, to "grow"
GDP, pay for social security, and our elders, and that "birth dearth" is
socially
harmful.
There is the sexist patriarchal male dominant position, that women must be
kept in their procreative place.
There is the libertarian view, (which also fits with much of the media and
commercial advertising), that regards unencumbered sex as freedom.
There is the "tribal" position (usually of oppressed ethnic groups) that
embraces reproduction as a means of gaining power by outnumbering the
oppressor.
And the "feminist" preference for addressing only the individual woman
and ignoring the responsibility (and reproductive needs) of men, families
and communities (I know some must sometimes be exclude from interfering, but
the responsibility should be encouraged there too).
and more: We love children and don't want to think about not having them
and: many US women are now having trouble conceiving, and talking about not
having children makes them feel bad
Beedy Parker, Camden, Maine
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-14-ask-umbras-book-club-why-dont-we-talk-about-population/
Obstacles to discussing population policy
Progressives, liberals, environmentalists, social activists, since sometime
in the 80's, have been reluctant to address population for some of the
following reasons (or so it appears to me):
We do not want to engage with conservative, fundamentalist, religious
opposition to birth control
We are embarrassed to suggest that people in poorer countries who have
large families should lower their birthrates (and so appear racist,
ethnicist, and hypocritical because of our own high consumption rates)
We are afraid that population policy requires draconiam measures (as in
China)
We are reassured that there is (has been) enough food produced on the world
for everyone, and that the main problem is unjust access to it.
We are convinced, from past experience, that only development, education of
women and job opportunities will lower birth rates
We shy away from the pessimistic opinion that only famine, plague and war
can make a dent in overpopulation.
We cannot accept the ungenerous position that poor immigrants should be
kept out of developed countries because of their high birth rate, suspecting
racism.
We may not want to think about our own and families' need and love for
children, what joy they give us, and that a low child society may be hard on
some.
There is also the capitalist economists position that economic growth is
imperative, including and partly driven by population growth, to "grow"
GDP, pay for social security, and our elders, and that "birth dearth" is
socially
harmful.
There is the sexist patriarchal male dominant position, that women must be
kept in their procreative place.
There is the libertarian view, (which also fits with much of the media and
commercial advertising), that regards unencumbered sex as freedom.
There is the "tribal" position (usually of oppressed ethnic groups) that
embraces reproduction as a means of gaining power by outnumbering the
oppressor.
And the "feminist" preference for addressing only the individual woman
and ignoring the responsibility (and reproductive needs) of men, families
and communities (I know some must sometimes be exclude from interfering, but
the responsibility should be encouraged there too).
and more: We love children and don't want to think about not having them
and: many US women are now having trouble conceiving, and talking about not
having children makes them feel bad
Beedy Parker, Camden, Maine
