-
A Word for Stephen Colbert - Overpopulation
02 Jul 2012
-
Nonsense About Sustainable Population Advocacy
23 Jul 2012
-
Irrational Fear of Population Decline
13 Jul 2012
-
Endangered Species Condoms
27 Jun 2012
Date posted: July 10, 2012
“activists worry that the summit represents a serious backslide to the bad old days of population control when contraception was deployed as a technical fix to reduce birthrates.”
– Betsy Hartmann, in Will World Population Day Open the Gates to Coercive Contraception?
Betsy Hartmann has a problem with Melinda Gates and the Gates Foundation adopting family planning as a major focus. Hartmann is one of those growth-pushers who goes out of her way to discredit any effort to rein in population growth. They all trot out the same, tired rehash of history, reminding us of some horrendous examples of forced abortions or sterilization and a few examples of the elite trying to reduce fertility rates among the poor for less than noble reasons. I have no argument with the importance that we be aware of these past mistakes. But I have no tolerance for raising them again and again as a reason to avoid adopting good policies today. As Population Media Center‘s Katie Elmore says in this segment from my film, GrowthBusters:
“Talking about population doesn’t mean control. It means being knowledgeable about the decisions we’re making, so we can make healthy decisions for a better future.”
– Katie Elmore, Vice President, Population Media Center
Hartmann, on the other hand, offers this misleading comment:
“the Gates Foundation’s family planning strategy blames population growth for exacerbating all matter of social ills, from stressing government budgets to contributing significantly to “the global burden of disease, environmental degradation, poverty and conflict.” It as if the fertility of poor women causes these problems, and not the exploitative policies and practices of the rich and powerful.”
Fact is we don’t have to choose just one societal ill at a time to address. The exploitative policies of the developed world are a critical part of all this. But fixing them while ignoring population growth will not do the trick.
Hartmann has a real problem with giving women control over their reproduction if that is in any way connected to a concern about how many children they will have. I am fed up with kind of nonsense. We create a better world through the exchange of ideas. If we have evidence that smaller family size helps women and their children live better lives, then we ought to share that information. If we’re aware that the scale of the human enterprise has outgrown the capacity of the planet to give us all good lives, then we are doing a good thing to give women around the world both the information and access to tools to control their reproduction.
So yes, Betsy Hartmann, we’re calling you out – as a growth-pusher who spreads disinformation about overpopulation. Hall of Shame material. Perhaps we’ll have to start one up. While we’re at it, we’re going to nominate Melinda Gates to the Hall of Fame. Bravo, Melinda, for bravely doing the right thing – and standing up to the purveyors of misinformation.
Dave Gardner
Director of the documentary
GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth
1 Comment
Vivian
Aug 8, 2012
Many thanks to John Feeney!For your coritdenasion, John, and others who participate in the discussion:According to new and apparently unforeseen research of Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, microorganisms and human organisms have common dynamics governing population size. Emerging evidence contradicts consensually validated scientific’ thinking and prevailing popular beliefs regarding human population dynamics, and indicates absolute global numbers of the human species increase primarily as a function of food supply.Contradictory data concerning human population growth suggest a scope of observation problem. That is to say, the choice of a scope of observation is forced, like having to choose to examine either the forest or the trees, either human propagation data or human reproduction data. When looking at population data, the ‘forest’ data and the ‘tree’ data appear to point toward different population growth estimates. The geographically localized, ‘tree’ data need not blind us to the fact that the propagation of global human numbers, ‘forest’ data, are increasing precipitously. “Not being able to see the forest for the trees” may help explain why forecasts of population growth vary widely. Some forecasting data indicate an end to human population growth in the middle of Century XXI. Other data suggest the continuous, skyrocketing increase of absolute global human population numbers. The United Nations Population Fund recently re-determined that world population is to level off at 9.2 billion people in the middle of this century.During the 20th century, despite two World Wars, ubiquitous local conflicts, disease, famine, pestilence and poverty, the human population worldwide grew from less than 2 billion to 6 billion people. Recent data indicate that world population continues to increase at an average annual rate of approximately 75,000,000. On the other hand, abundant research provides contraindications to this population growth trend. Countries like Australia, Canada, Italy and Tunisia, among many others, show a declining trend in their rates of human population growth. Human population numbers have been regarded as a sort of preternatural phenomenon. Possible reasons for human population growth have been curiously thought of as unimportant, obscure, numerous, complex or even unknowable so that finding a strategy to address potential global challenges posed by rapidly increasing human numbers has been thought to be all but impossible. Recently, unexpected population data appeared that indicate the governing dynamics of human population is a natural phenomenon. The new data provide an empirical presentation of a non-recursive biological problem which is independent of ethical, social, legal, religious and cultural coritdenasions. This means that world human population growth is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop, a relationship between food and population in which food availability drives population growth, and population growth fuels the MISTAKEN IMPRESSION or MISPERCEPTION that food production needs to be increased ever more to keep up with a growing population. The data indicate that as we increase food production every year, the number of people goes up, too.Perhaps a new biological understanding is emergent. It is simply this: Earth’s carrying capacity for human organisms, like that for other organisms, is determined by food availability. More food equals more people; less food equals less people; and, in any case, no food equals no people. Human population growth is a huge problem; but, we can take the measure of this problem and find a remedy that is consonant with universally shared human values.