I'm going to reply to two posts in one message here -
(*and* I changed the thread title, but won't call it
hijacking!) ;)
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> > From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Best-case scenario for population reduction is
> >education and economic empowerment for women, as I
> >think Pat pointed out.
> I don't really think the fact that the US has a ZPG
> fertility rate of 2.1
> while Europe and Japan are at 1.5 and 1.22,
> respectively is the result of
> Japanese women being the most liberated of the three
> developed countries/ecconomic unions.
Mmm, I didn't use 'liberated;' since the American
sense of the word has connotations of 'having sex with
whomever I please, whenever I please' I don't think it
applies to forced marriages or child brides (although
I admit I was shocked upon seeing a program about
post-pubescent Japanese schoolgirls who have sex with
older men for money/luxury goods). The programs I
referred to (Heifer International and various
micro-loan systems - there's one in Bangladesh that
has apparently worked like gangbusters) are about
reducing ignorance and poverty. Nearly all of the
enrollees/beneficiaries of these are women with
dependent children; health, nutritional and
environmental education are emphasized in HI, while
micro-loans are more about economic
improvement/independence (although one program
involves setting up mini health clinics as a way for a
woman to not only support her family financially, but
improves access to health care for local villagers).
Several studies, as I think others had mentioned, show
that educating girls/women leads to reduced
birthrates.
> Indeed, the EU and Japan are going to be in
> very interesting positions in 20-50 years, with a
> population that is highly
> skewed towards the aged and is shrinking. The EU's
> population can be
> expected to drop almost 30% every generation while
> Japan's will drop over
> 40%. It is clear that, unless these
> countries/regions show explosive
> increases in their productivity, their GDP will
> become stagnent and their
> relative influence in the world will fall.
Immigration will probably make up much of that. But I
believe that, as our Western lifestyle is not
currently sustainable, we need to reduce not merely
our numbers, but our 'human footprint.' We ought not
be building McMansions, heating and cooling them to
70oF, driving cars that get less than 20mpg, etc. etc.
etc.. Defining "he who dies with the most toys" as a
winner is **imbecilic**. It will drive our
civilization into the ground, and potentially affect
our home nearly as much as that comet 65 million years
ago.
>Ronn! wrote:
>>Deborah Harrell wrote:
>>I think Dr. Phlox's folk might have an interesting
>>point in their group marriage approach...wasn't each
>person married to 3 others? Now *that* would lead to
>>wild family reunions! :)
>Not to mention a market for king-size or larger beds.
Why not just a big ole Rumpus Room?
<she said "rumpus!"> ;}
>>Debbi
>>who would, if given Q powers, prevent anyone from
>>having/siring children until age 22 or so (which
would
>>also nearly eliminate the problem of birth-related
>>fistulas that devastate thousands of child brides)
>OTOH from an evolutionary viewpoint fistulas being a
>major concern is a relatively recent development
>compared with the need to produce sufficient
>offspring soon enough that there will be enough to
>survive to childbearing age themselves in order to
>keep the species going before the child bride in
>question is eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger,
<raises eyebrows> And how many other species develop
such fistulas? We big-headed apes are at greater risk
than nearly all others, and when the child in question
is undersized because of near-starvation and overwork,
it is that much worse. Besides, it is inefficient
from a reproductive standpoint to have females in
labor for days with stillborn results, or be a social
pariah after giving birth to one child (these girls
are not allowed to live within the family compound and
suffer exposure to weather and predators, and some
commit suicide). Mares, does, ewes and bitches who
are unable to deliver offspring without ripping their
insides to pieces die. Unless we humans intervene
(don't get me started on bulldogs and
Thoroughbreds)!).
>hence the reason that such a change has not already
>occurred without the intervention of QDebbi . . .
Dammit, Jim, I oughter be a demigoddess, not a mere
docter or hosstrainer!
Debbi
who must trot off to her next lesson now
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
