My Dot Earth Comment - and a response

My comment on Andrew Revkin's NY Times blog, Dot Earth, was selected as an editor's choice comment. Thanks to Lou Gold for alerting me to the thread. Also thanks to Lou for his response to my Dot Earth comment in the comments section below.

I was commenting on this post: Could Energy Success Backfire in the End? Could cheap non-polluting, renewable energy lead to a huge new burst of population growth?

Here's my comment. It's another riff on the Stimulus Gender Gap topic:

Thus far in human history, an increase in available energy has always led to an increase in population growth. There are a few instances where civilized societies have maintained a steady state - these are all island nations. Some were found in Polynesia. Edo Japan is the best example.

So-that means that tackling population growth head on is an absolute necessity, whether we can increase the energy available to us or not, ultimately it makes no difference. Let us heed the words of Engels on this. Engels hated Malthus and thought the idea of population outstripping resources was ludicrous, but still said this:

"There is, of course, the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obliged to regulate the producion of human beings, just as it has already come to regulate the production of things, it will be precisely this society, and this society alone, which can carry this out without difficulty. It does not seem to me that it would be at all difficult in such a society to achieve by planning a result which has already been produced spontaneously, without planning in France and Lower Austria. At any rate, it is for the people in the communist society themselves to decide whether, when and how this is to be done, and what means they wish to employ to the purpose. I do not feel called upon to make proposals for giving them advice about it. These people, in any case, will surely not be any less intelligent than we are."

Engels' abstract possibility is very real to most of us today. Some still can't see it, but as food prices climb ever higher, the mismatch of population and resources on our planet will soon be undeniable. We are those people who must decide how to deal with overpopulation. Fortunately, the solution is not that hard. Just give women the choice and the means to prevent or end pregnancies that they do not want. Accompany that with education about ecology and economic alternatives to motherhood and the problem is solved. Unfortunately, regressive patriarchal forces are incapable of conceding reproductive control to women. Maybe that's the best argument there is for "communism" or some similar economic revolution. It may be the only thing that can topple the patriarchs from power and start the flow of funds to women's health and welfare.

Even our beloved Obama administration allowed funds for women's reproductive healthcare to be stripped from the stimulus package. Women's health is not a side issue. It is THE issue of our time.

— Kelpie Wilson, Cave Junction, Oregon

Comments

[Lou Gold]

Kelpie,

Here are some hard questions for you (posted with love and appreciation for all the you do for the earth):

You say, "Fortunately, the solution is not that hard. Just give women the choice and the means to prevent or end pregnancies that they do not want. Accompany that with education about ecology and economic alternatives to motherhood and the problem is solved."

The problem is that there is no analysis of how the "economic alternatives to motherhood" will be created for poorer and "less developed" peoples. My understanding is that reductions of family size naturally arrive with women's rights, urbanization, education, economic development, etc. But the development package also includes increased per capita consumption and more energy intensive technologies.

Can anyone provide a study showing that modern woman-liberating and opportunity-creating economic development results in lowering the cumulative impact on the earth? If not, then I've got to think that it's not so simple. Surely, women must have full rights of choice and opportunity but it it is because they are human beings and not necessarily as a solution for the problem over over-consumption of the earth's natural resources.

Truly, the contradictions of development are immense and they arrive as a package. As one who is steeped in the ideologies of deep ecology and wilderness preservation I've been trying to confront these issues as an American tree-hugger now living in Brazil. Here are a few of the posts:

http://lougold.blogspot.com/2008/12/chico-mendes-capixaba-and-change-this.html%20

http://lougold.blogspot.com/2007/11/soy-in-amazon-pat-roberts-writing-in_06.html

http://lougold.blogspot.com/2007/08/expoacre-few-nights-ago-i-went-to-rodeo.html%20

All around me, here in Acre, Brazil, I see that the younger newer middle-class families are smaller, better educated and more urban. I also see that as cheap energy appears (rural electrification is a recent arrival here) there is an explosion of home appliance buying -- TVs, PCs, air conditioners, toasters, home entertainment centers, etc. BUT, it's important to note that these people are only now acquiring what an average entry-level environmental studies teacher or employee of an environment organization in the US already has and has known all of his or her life.

Brazil tends to take an indirect approach to the population issue, defining it instead as a series of health issues ranging from controlling sexually transmitted diseases to reducing the number of butchered abortions. They give away 100s of millions of condoms, even in high schools and even creating special rain forest brands made of natural latex -- yes, Chico Mendes Condoms (see: Condoms for Conservation ) But it's economic development that actually reduces the birthrate.

Yes, womens' rights are essential. And, yes, cheaper or more available energy increases consumption and triggers lots of economic activity. Development, consumption, cheap energy and reduced population travel together.

Recently the World Social Forum met in Amazônia, in Belem where 100,000 people from all over the world gathered as a counter-event to the World Economic Forum at Davos. One of the main poster issues there was the preservation of the Amazon forest and its indigenous people.

Brazil's President Lula also appeared and declared that the Amazon does not exist as a sanctuary for the world and he noted that the 20 million people who live here want material development like everyone else.

Can the developed world pay a price that can actually dissuade countries like Brazil to NOT follow the pattern well-established in the developed economies of cutting down the forest and exhausting nature's resources? Brazil has half of it's forests intact and another 30% in a fragmented state. The US has less than 10% of its primary forests standing and almost all of it is fragments.

Everywhere I go in Brazil people ask why the US and foreigners are so concerned about preserving the Amazon forest? The motives are definitely distrusted.

How would you have me answer their questions? I agree that womens' health is not a side issue but I feel the sustainability is THE issue.

[Kelpie Wilson]

As you say Lou, of course the entire solution is not so simple. When I said the solution is simple, I meant that the prescription is simple - empower women and birth rates go down. It's like single-payer health care in the US. Most of us know it's the right way to go, but we have to overcome vast ideological barriers before we can even get started on the practical tasks of implementing it.

Perhaps Brazil has succeeded in making comprehensive reproductive health care available to all, but in many parts of the world this is still not the case. Regressive patriarchal attitudes in the US have a lot to do with the denial of this care to the world's poor. Until we have completed the task of empowering women worldwide, I don't think we can say that it doesn't work. So I still say, first things first. End patriarchy and empower women.

Regarding the population vs. consumption debate, it may be true that at a given point in time, smaller, more urban families have a bigger footprint on the earth than extremely poor but large families. But in the long run, the smaller families bring us closer to a stable population. The large families ensure that population pressure will continue to threaten biodiversity and other planetary resources, no matter how green and energy efficient technology becomes.

Development must accompany population stabilization in Brazil and everywhere else. Development in poor nations and de-development in rich nations need to both converge on a green path of efficient energy use and equal distribution of resources. Simple in concept, but again, another one that is devilish in its details.