Thoughts on Development

A post from Sarah, NECSP's grassroots outreach coordinator:

Fifteen years ago this September, 20,000 people gathered in Cairo, Egypt at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) to tackle issues poverty and clarify the relationship between population growth and underdevelopment. But clarity and consensus on the relationship between population growth and underdevelopment are still elusive, as recent statements made by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations illustrate.

Speaking on April 1^st at the 42^nd session of the Commission on Population and Development, he denounced what he called the anti-life attitude in the preparatory documents for the U.N. summit for the ICPD (known as Cairo +15). The Papal Nuncio was also critical of the “population reduction” mentality expressed by Secretary Hilary Clinton as she accepted the Margaret Sanger award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America days earlier.

Archbishop Migliore and Secretary Clinton represent recent iterations from public voices of the two sides of a critical, though often ignored, debate on the relationship between population and development. It is a matter that deserves careful attention from advocates of a stable population. If our goals are not integral to the goals of human dignity, equality, economic justice, and opportunity to live a full and meaningful life in any society across the globe, now and in future generations, then there is no justification for our work. We are advocates for population sustainability precisely because we are convinced that achieving these goals of justice, especially in underdeveloped regions of the world, will not be possible without simultaneously stabilizing human population. We affirm that the widespread availability of family planning, along with investment in education, local sustainable development, gender equality, health care, participatory governance, and environmental conservation, are all necessary components of just development.

Yet inclusion of this family planning component of our vision for just development is a matter of deep contention for many people. Archbishop Migliore in his statement argued that the presence of a large young workforce in proportion to elder dependents is a key developmental advantage for African nations with high fertility rates. Over the years, advocates for population stability have often been accused of racist and nationalistic fear that drives them to oppress disadvantaged people by depriving them of their younger generations and the full potential of their human capital.

In his book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, Steven Mosher also argues that since the rate of population growth is falling (taken as a global average), we should create public policy to enhance rather than diminish birth rates. Mosher notes that population growth is associated with economic growth, concluding therefore that those who would limit birth rates among the poor would, again, see them deprived of their capital.

So, are high birth rates an advantage or disadvantage for poor families in developing nations? We can assume that intelligent and caring people on both sides of the issue all have the best interests of poor people and future generations at heart. But who better understands the complex dynamics between population and development, economics and politics, and the capacities of the ecosystems underpinning it all?

As good observers of the natural sciences, we can begin by recognizing and sizing up the limiting factors that are placed on us by our ecological systems. Sadly, ecosystem science is often left at the sidelines of our political discourse, but it makes a critical difference. If we could be certain that our only limiting factor was the size of the earth, then we might look upon population growth with much less urgency. In the real world, though, the human community lives embedded in a complex ecosystem which must be able to sustain itself in order to continue to support us. We are already placing such strains on that system that we must shift our way of living on the planet into a more harmonious balance with the living systems that support us.

Archbishop Magliore and others point out that the greatest amount of abuse on those systems is coming from those nations that have low birth rates. This is true, and must be addressed, not only for the sake of justice toward underdeveloped nations, but also for the sake of all of our survival. But calling for economic development with restrictions on family planning means growing that unbalanced economy farther and faster than ever, accelerating us toward a situation of critical unsustainability. Recognizing the limitations of our ecology is still a controversial move in the population/development dialogue, but it must be undertaken to address the full reality of the situation.

In terms of economic development itself, however, continued population growth is not proving to benefit poor families and nations. The relationship is complex in this dynamic and globalized world where children of poor rural families often migrate and find gainful employment in cities. Our economy lends itself to high concentrations of people that would not have been possible in previous generations. Of course, this depends on increasing the intensity of demands on ecosystems to produce more food per acre and absorb more emissions into the atmosphere and oceans. Eventually the capacity of these systems to integrate these intense pressures will wane, so the continued intensification and concentration of human demands is unwise.

Therefore, large families within the global economic context may not always impoverish a family as it would have in the past when they would have had to share the resources of a small plot of land among growing numbers of descendents. Research presented by David Canning this month at the Commission on Population and Development does show that lowering fertility rates in developing nations does benefit the family and the country by decreasing the number of child dependents, therefore allowing more female participation in the work force, which results in more investment in child health and education, and increased economic development.

We would all like to live in a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is dramatically reduced, everyone has access to a healthy and fulfilling life, and the prospects for our children are bright. We want to achieve this with the greatest balance of justice and respect for people, especially in light of their own cultures and values. As advocates for a stable human population, we believe this can only be achieved in a world without growing numbers of human beings making impossible demands on our ecosystems. We agree that the lifestyles of the rich nations must be changed along with efforts to invest in underdeveloped areas. And we thoughtfully affirm that education about and provision of family planning to all who need it is a key component of our efforts to assist in the just development of poor nations.

Moderate and Determined

After reading the two responses to Henry Barbaro's letter in the Jamaica Plain Gazette, perhaps readers can now appreciate both the difficulty and absolute necessity of the mission New England Coalition for Sustainable Population has set for itself: to raise awareness of and promote action on the ways to achieve sustainable population for the region, the nation and the international community. With 225,000 net people added each day to a planet in ecological crisis, this issue is not going away anytime soon.

Both writers agreed that lowered birth rates and stabilized population were worthy and admirable “ends” that must be achieved if our human communities have any real chance at attaining sustainable living scenarios. In this, they are surely correct. Talking “sustainable development” is just a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream -- unless it involves a stabilized population.

But the “means” each author suggested couldn’t have been more divergent. One warned against state-mandated, involuntary human population management and advocated for robust access to voluntary means of birth control and increased education to lower birth rates. The other called for enforcement of strict policies on procreation to alleviate the occurrence of poverty.

The good news is that both have realized that stabilizing human population is a core-component of the urgent need to implement sustainable development regionally, nationally and internationally. On this point, NECSP strongly agrees with them – and its our job to encourage this dialog and provide New Englanders the tools necessary to be activists on sustainable population issues.

As to the “means” each author was suggesting, Glenn Ingrham is right to note the power a government of, by and for the people can wield – when so motivated, our democratically elected officials can marshall profound influence on the choices citizens make (think seatbelts and smoking). On the other hand, Rene Ruiz is right to warn against the very real potential of grevious human rights abuses when government acts mindlessly or with excessive, myopic urgency.

The middle ground is “we the people” identifying stabilized population as fundamental to the path towards a peaceful, ecologically sustainable future and then turning the positive power of our self-government towards that goal. Afterall, it’s the power of our government that is best positioned to ensure the education, literacy and access to family planning that will allow people to make voluntary decisions about reducing their fertility.

In closing, here are two examples of the type of democratic self-government that would do wonders for attaining sustainable population. One: Taking birth control pills off prescription and providing easy access to modern contraceptive methods with subsidies and sliding scale charges. Two: Requiring pre-marital counseling regarding family planning, the economic benefits of small family size and the environmental consequences of population growth –before any marriage licenses are issued.

Please visit the NECSP website, www.necsp.org, to become a member and get involved in this most interesting and crucial of issues.

Poles, Problems and A Middle Way?

As part of the Global Population Speak Out, NECSP board member Henry Barbaro wrote a letter to his hometown newspaper, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, laying out the basics of the population issues facing humanity at various scales (regionally, domestically and internationally).

Then, in response, a very good thing happened! Other local citizens found their voices and also submitted letters on the topic. And, wow! What amazingly different views the authors had. Scroll down to read two very different letters and tune in tomorrow to read Henry's response.

GOVT SHOULD NOT HAVE POPULATION CONTROL
In the March 20 edition of the JP Gazette, I read with interest the letter written by Henry Barbaro, board member of the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population, on the subject of population control. I welcome debate on this subject, as we should all be concerned about humanity consuming too many resources to maintain a reasonable standard of living and ecological health. It may be the case that, if we cannot stabilize our net environmental footprint, the only solution to this problem is population control. However, previous attempts at population control have had questionable effects on vulnerable populations.

Writing about the Irish potato famine in “The Great Calamity,” Christine Kinealy states the English gov-ernment used famine-related government policy to “…facilitate various long-desired changes within Ireland. These included population control and the consolidation of property…”

The US has also seen ethically dubious policy on this matter. In the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of Dr. Bell to forcibly sterilize his mentally disabled patient Carrie Buck, because, in the opinion of Justice Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Birth control advocate Margaret Sanger argued in “Birth Control Review” (April 1932) for: “A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

General attitudes about humanity among population control theorists are also instructive. Caltech nuclear scientist Harrison Brown, in his 1954 book “The Challenge of Man’s Future,” states that the carrying capacity of the Earth is probably between 50 and 200 billion humans. However, he says this fact must be kept se-cret, as humanity is analogous to “a pulsating mass of maggots.” Therefore, according to Brown, humanity must not be allowed to “have its way” regarding population growth. In “The Population Bomb,” biologist Paul Ehrlich analogizes humans with cancer, and suggests compulsory birth regulation may be necessary.

In 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger produced National Security Study Memorandum 200, in which he concluded the US government must take an activist role in depopulating the developing world. Like Ehrlich, Kissinger goes on to suggest an alternate view that asks if “mandatory population control measures” are appropriate for the US and others.

I support a woman’s right to choose, and an individual’s right to access birth control, and therefore I think we must guard against ceding control of our reproductive rights to government in any form. Too often, population control efforts conclude with unacceptable policies that put the burden on the less fortunate. Therefore, I call on the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population to clearly state on its web site that it will never support any form of state-mandated, involuntary population reduction or control. Voluntary methods, such as access to birth control, raising income and education levels, raising literacy rates, etc., are acceptable, so long as they are done with the consent of the population in question.

GOVT SHOULD LIMIT LOWER CLASS PROCREATION
I couldn’t agree more with Henry Barbaro’s letter in the March 20 issue of the JP Gazette (“Population surge threatens the environment”), where he states: “addressing human overpopulation is critical to assuring human sustainability and security in the 21st century.”

I offer a slightly different perspective on population control than that offered in Mr. Barbaro’s letter. In the current era of economic cutbacks, layoffs and burgeoning costs for the care of the lower class, it is imperative we reexamine policy as to how best to ameliorate poverty. Spending on health and human services is the largest portion of the US government’s annual budget at just over $700 billion in Fiscal Year 2008 (www.federalbudget.com).

Throughout history, the poor have garnered much attention, perhaps epitomized by an infamous biblical quote: “The poor you shall always have with you...” (Matthew 26:11, New International Version). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent. In 2007, 37.3 million people were in poverty, up from 36.5 million in 2006.

One overlooked aspect of the policy debate over poverty is that of limiting lower-class procreation through social engineering in Iceland, during the mid 1800s, Gunnar Karlsson noted: “The only obvious way to reduce the expenses of poor relief in the future [is] to limit procreation. At this time, marriages were restricted in Iceland in the same way as in Denmark: those who had received poor relief as adults needed special permission from the communal authorities to enter marriage” (“The History of Iceland,” 2000, 231).

Bioethicist Onora O’Neill noted: “Direct coercion of procreative decisions would not be unjust. Such emergencies would arise only when recklessly fertile poor people persist in having children whose needs could not be met by their parents or by others, either by increasing or reallocating resources….Preventing such reckless procreation would coerce less than would failing to prevent it” (“Faces of Hunger,” 1986, 158).

Using census data to determine poverty rates, families in certain income ranges should be restricted to a certain number of children (or none). The current federally established poverty income level of $21,200 an-nually for a family of four should be redefined to a family of three (one child). Those who are unexpectedly brought into the ranks of the poor through job layoff, injury or illness should still be provided human services and support as is the current intent of entitlement programs. However, once in poverty, strict policies on procreating should be enforced in order to avoid “spreading” the low-income status. Economists would likely need to develop charts to determine how many low-income workers might be needed in any given year, based on the prior year’s economic trends and job needs (unemployment rate and other usual economic indices).

Limiting the procreative tendencies of the lower income classes would benefit the larger society through decreased economic, political and social costs, including a reduction in those crimes that are correlated to poverty.

Comments, Ideas and The Work To Do

Probably the biggest challenge to bona fide progressive sustainable population advocates is overcoming the dominant cultural assertion that our economy must be physically growing to accommodate an adequate quality of life for the participants of that economy.

Look no further than a post on the Crossing Wall Street blog that is very coherent in as far as it goes:

http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2009/04/population_grow.html

The author can't quite accept that a long-term population decline could coincide with "positive economic growth". If "positive economic growth" is the result of aggregate increases in resource extraction, widgets created and externalized costs multiplied, then perhaps there is reason for the author's doubt.

He does he hit the nail on the head exquisitely, though, with this line: "...per-capita wealth... is very different from a growing economy." Read in context of his entire post, this line seems to be dismissive of the idea of a population declining to sustainable levels as measured by its ecological footprint.

However, isn't this intellectual disconnect really what has happened en masse on the planet? People have evolved to the point where they believe that a "growing economy" is so important that the concept of "increasing per capita wealth" should be thrown under the bus if the two happen to face off in the town square.

The false question is this: "Can an economy 'grow' with a population in long term decline?" Who cares?!!

The question is really this: "Is the international community, in the face of the planetary ecological catastrophe unfolding in real-time, clever enough to engineer an economy that is accommodative of sustaining per capita standard of living that is above the poverty line for 6.7 billion human beings residing on the planet (and growing by a quarter million people per day) -- while operating within the ecological capacities of the planet Earth such that those capacities are not permanently degraded"?

Yes? No? Maybe?

The Hour is Late, The Time is Now and The Future is at Hand

New England Coalition for Sustainable Population is proud to introduce our new website and refurbished blog. We are eager to organize and train population activists from New England, the United States and across the world -- we want to know you, hear your stories, listen to your ideas and work together to bring sustainable population into the everyday lexicon of environmentalists, capitalists, unions, families, students, children, adults, business people, neighbors and governments across the international community.

Out of the ashes of the old ways, let's help build a new region, a new nation and a new world. Please visit our website by clicking on the "Action" picture above. And don't forget to follow -- and contribute to -- our blog!

It will take a lot of work, but working together as a tight knit group of dedicated activists, thinkers and supporters -- the future is bright, green and sustainable.