Apropos of David's random thought, Jeffrey Sachs has an article in this month's Scientific American in which he proposes four ways to reduce human population growth, and therefore reduce the burden on the Earth.
Sachs' 4 goals are:
- Reduce infant mortality.
- Promote girls' education and equality.
- Raise income and productivity on Third World farms.
- Promote family planning.
Notice something? All of them -- except possibly the fourth, depending on one's views -- are things that would be good to do even if we entirely ignore their impacts on the environment. That is, these are things we should be doing out of simple human compassion, never mind environmental ethics. Is anyone here for more African babies dying? How about greater gender inequality? Anybody want to keep Third World farmers poor?
I find this to be pretty common for a lot "environmental" issues lately. As in, it would be good for the U.S. to begin phasing out coal for a number of reasons -- it's destroying the countryside, it's harmful for workers, and the resulting air pollution unduly harms young children and the elderly. But oh God, don't propose a carbon tax!
We, as a species, have a serious problem. There are a number of problems we have where the goals (if not how to get to them) are clear: eliminating coal is one of them. But rather than set that goal and work towards it, we're bogged down in PR from incumbent industries and their loyal politicians.
I truly fear for our people, if we can't make even the most simple of decisions without tears, screaming, and a huge dollop of acrimony.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 4:11 am
24 Aug 2006
Scientific American is a terrific magazine, and it is a major cultural sorrow of mine that I almost never have time to look at it. And Jeffrey Sachs is one of the world's greatest living humanists (though he probably would not refer to himself that way). So thanks very much, John, for sending this our way.
On the fourth goal: This is an area in which the guys in charge of my church, the Roman Catholic Church, are definitely part of the problem, not the solution. (Which is one of many reasons why identifying myself as "Catholic" is more trouble than it is worth, most of the time.) Abortion is a major no-no, but so too is artificial birth control, for reasons very difficult to understand. Their condemnation of condom use to prevent HIV/AIDS is positively wicked. And since in Africa that especially is bad news for women, who are apparently pretty much the sexual slaves of their husbands, the Catholics in charge are also standing in the way of goal 2.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:36 am
24 Aug 2006
It has been suggested that item three (trying to survive on a small farm) may lock poor people into poverty. There are reasons why most of us don't farm anymore. Small, subsistence type farms are a difficult, unreliable way of life. They are a high-risk small business. It doesn't pay much for all of the effort and in lands subject to drought and pestilence, things get that much harder. Decent jobs in decent cities might be a better idea, although difficult to implement without good governance.
If decent cities with strong economies existed in Africa, they would draw people off subsistence farms like they do everywhere else in the world where there are better options (China for example). Although, workers there are not living in paradise, hundreds of millions are still choosing that life over rural farming. Just as we have here. Ubanization is a trend taking place voluntarily around the world. If it could be faciltated, poverty reduction might accelerate.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
mrLee Posted 10:23 am
24 Aug 2006
Permalink
John McGrath Posted 12:18 am
25 Aug 2006
We should raise living standards in the Third World (and like the others above, I agree this would include increased urbanization) because this is the right thing to do. That it would also have good side-effects environmentally is a bonus.
I should have been clearer. The point of the post is that those who whine and complain about the steps necessary to build a sustainable civilization deserve as much respect as a petulant six year-old who refuses to eat their greens. This stuff is necessary.
Permalink
maritarobin Posted 2:48 am
25 Aug 2006
After having just re-read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael," I was saddened to find such a 'Taker' attitude reflected in this comment by biodifversivist. Hopefully you are familiar with the work, but if not, I highly suggest a read. By 'Taker,' I am referring to the line of thought that views the progression of civilization in a linear fashion, without pausing to consider that it is perhaps we who have strayed from the path. My point is, we all bear the responsibility to examine our knee-jerk instincts to resolving global problems. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with urbanization in some areas, but it should not be promoted simply because it works well sometimes.
I am currently serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in Macedonia, which is worlds away from Africa, but from my year here, I have definitely come to appreciate that we can no longer slap a one-size-fits-all bandage (such as urbanization) on the problem and expect the gaping wound to heal. Every culture has its own, well, culture, and we must respect and trust the integrity of each. As Westerners, specifically Americans, we dictate greatly the form that globalization takes in this world, and suggesting that subsistence farmers would be better suited scraping by in an overly industrialized, polluted concrete mecca of urbanization is not only impractical, it's inhumane. As Ishmael shows, diversity is inherent in our survival. And by the way, if all the farmers flock to the cities, who produces the food?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:54 am
25 Aug 2006
I am glad you pointed out that suggestion by Biodiv, which caught my attention too. Presumably it matters that he wrote "decent cities," suggesting he has a very high bar for how the kind of urbanization he has in mind should work. The huge cities of the developing world, ringed by slums, into which come pouring the displaced, impoverished refugees from rural areas, are surely not what he means.
But, what does he mean, more exactly? Maybe we shall get an answer before long.
In general, your appeal to diversity sounds like the wisest counsel. The imposition of conformity and uniformity should have no place in human behavior.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:47 am
25 Aug 2006
Generally I agree with the four proposals, and would add a fifth.
5) Encourage income re-distribution and the developement of social welfare policies.
One reason poor people have more children is to have enough future income earners to care for them in their old age. People in countries that don't worry about that tend to have less children.
It's the old, "if we took the money we spend on arms and weapons, and spent it on social services" story.... sigh.
But we should also pause and consider that it is not population growth alone that is the problem, it is how those people live.
It is often said that one American is worse for the planet than 20 people in a poor country like Bangladesh. But try it again, suburban SUV drivers who live in MacMansions are worse for America than people who live in modest size apartments in cities and don't have cars. (Vegetarians are even better!).
Population should be a concern, but we, as Americans need to deal with the over-consumption of our country.
And a lot of it is not done by individuals, but by institutions.
Urbanization is a natural general trend in human societies. It has been since humans first began to form socities. As to what kind of cities, that is largely a matter of wealth and then policies.
Certainly the US can't dictate the latter, but we could try to provide good examples. Or we could look around the world for examples.
Delighted to hear from Macedonia! (Though I must say I read "Ishmael" and wasn't impressed, don't get it, perhaps you can explain it to me (smile)).
As Americans we can share our wealth (it's called foreign aid, we seem to have lost the idea post 9/11) in ways that help end poverty (rather than putting guns in peoples hands). We can also try to be good examples for other countries.
A sixth item (though one Jason probably won't like!) might be,
6) Stop using the World Bank to insist developing countries spend less on social services (such as education).
patrick
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:04 am
28 Aug 2006
Me neither! Thanks for being bold enough to admit it. I'm too dorky to be comfortable admitting the like.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:58 am
28 Aug 2006
Thanks for admitting it also! It was presented to me by someone who loved it with an almost cult like fondness (no, I am not blaming them!), who clearly expected the book to change my life.
Short answer. It didn't. And I read something else by Quinn, and it was no better.
I'm afraid this kind of mysticism isn't my cup of tea.
Now, put me in a redwood forest next to a stream and I am lost......
patrick
Permalink