Kim--
> Our Cultures, in fact, more than our natures, are what
> cause ecological breakdown in the first place. Just like you can not heal
> the body without healing the mind, so they say, you can not solve our
> environmental problems in a positive and long term manner without addressing
> the cultural side(s) of the issue.
I couldn't agree more. I think "culture," broadly defined, is what is
driving the ecological crisis. And I think this should be seen as good
news--if the destructive things that we are doing are a result of our
socially constructed reality, they should be amenable to change.
> Population is a wonderful example. It would be ecologically ideal if we could
> just persuasively explain to everyone that population is causing pollution
> and resource depletion and then they all on their own accord decide to limit
> their family sizes. This will not happen, at least not in time.
I don't think it is necessary, or productive, to assume that "this will not
happen." Should we reject biological determinism only to embrace
cultural determinism? Maybe, just maybe, people (and I think it's better
not to frame it in terms of "we"s and "they"s) can use their
"rationality" and come to a realization that certain changes need to be
made in their cultures, whatever those cultures may be.
If we look
> at the population issue from only a "crisis" standpoint, our next option,
> like in China, is to force individuals via disincentives, to limit their
> family size. THis not only doesn't work, (increases in female infanticide in
> CHina surely proves this), but is a breach of human rights.
Just as I don't think we should assume that people cannot become
empowered to change their cultures in certain ways, I don't think we
should jump to the conclusion that the only alternative is top-down
"control," that people should be "forced" to limit their family sizes.
Maybe I have a much more positive conception of what people are capable
of than some, but I think education and voluntary choice for limitation
(and the ability to carry out that choice, access to safe and effective
birth control and abortion) make for a very real option.
So..... Despite
> our conception that we only have so much time, we HAVE to address culture and
> its meaning. It is the only way we can find a long-term solution. Surely
> the numbers have done all they can, exponential charts and habitat maps are
> informative and essential but not, ultimately, persuasive enough on their
> own.
Perhaps the questioning of certain cultural assumptions will help make
such "facts" more persuasive, by reframing the issues. That's what I
like about ecofeminism--ecofeminists like Warren and Plumwood look to the
conceptual structures that are very basic to western culture and
challenge them.
> Secondly, Overconsumption, as it would seem you agree, is american culture
> (although it has its charming decadant side). You are right that in the US,
> more children equals more comsuption, especially for families that live in
> privilaged situations. We have to educate ourselves about living more
> sustainably.
I have a hard time even seeing its decadence as "charming." I'm really
turned off by a lot of the things I see in the "culture" I'm immersed in.
It *really* needs to change! And I notice you seem to think "we" can
make rational decisions about the need for such change.
Outside the united states, i wouldn't dare prescribe action.
> That is for those people, in those cultures, who are concerned about the
> issue to do. And they are there. We can collaborate, share information, even
> campaign eachother, but it is not our right to decide on world-wide
> population policy, it is a presumptive and ultimately doomed idea.
>
I'm not sure exactly who you mean when you say it's not "our" right to
"decide," or what exactly it is you would place off limits. For me, I
guess I feel like the boundaries of the groups within which I would place
myself as part of the "we" are very permeable--I don't think of myself as
primarily a citizen of the United States, more a member of the species.
And there are certain issues that I do feel compelled to speak out about,
wherever they may occur. Should I not have signed the chain letter to
stop French nuclear testing because I'm not a citizen of France? Does it
make me a cultural imperialist if I do? Should I say it's not for me to
judge that female genital mutilation is wrong, because it's not a part of
"my" culture? And if human population pressure, in whatever form it may
manifest, is leading to the oppression and destruction of nonhumans, must
I still bite my tongue rather than raise the issue with someone whose
culture differs from mine? I'm not sure the culture of the
anti-government, anti-ESA, pro-ranching, mining, timbering, developing,
etc folks of the Western USA share my own "culture"! Does that mean I do
not have the "right" to speak out against what they are advocating? Of
course, I'm not saying I want any one group to go in and impose a
top-down "solution" on others. But I think free, open and honest
discussion about a number of things in various cultures that need
changing if humans are to live more sustainably is absolutely vital, and
that includes forthright discussion of population issues, globally.
> The Erhlichs would disagree with me. Nicholas Hilyard and V. Shiva, at the
> ECOLOGIST in England, are publishing an issue concentrating on this very
> topic right now. It will be called, "Too many for whom?" I think that is a
> great title. It will discuss the idea of seeing people as numbers and how
> this has tainted our ideas about population and caused many people to view
> third world women in racist and patriarchical ways.
There's already been quite a bit of discussion about "seeing people as
numbers," and the racism and sexism that have been involved in this
problem. What about the anthropocentrism? The title, "Too many for
whom?" implies to me (not having read this recent work) that, if a
certain cultural group rejects the idea of there ever being "too many" of
them, there aren't too many. But what about the nonhuman lifeforms that
they may be exterminating in the continued expansion of their society? I
reject placing "culture" over "nature" or humans over nonhumans, and so
my answer to "Too many for whom?" would be, for just about all parts of
the world--for nonhumans, that's whom, if not for the people themselves.
I see culture as amenable to change because we humans are, biologically,
very flexible beings--though we may have a great cultural inertia and
resist change. Many other species are far less fortunate, far less able
to change their ways of living. Why do nonhumans always get "erased"
from the discussion? (Sigh)
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 8 18:28:44 1995
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 09 Aug 1995 12:32:01 +1200
; 9 Aug 95 12:28:41 +1200
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 12:28:00 +1200
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Protest Nuclear Testing/Chirac's Address
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
Hi ECOFEMers!
For those of you interested in and willing to protest France's
resumption of nuclear testing in the South Pacific, here's the
contact address:
MONSIEUR JACQUES CHIRAC
PALAIS DE'L ELYSEE
55, RUE DUE FABOUG-SAINT-HONOR
75008 PARIS
FRANCE
Also, today's (9 August 1995) Christchurch Press reported the New
Zealand government will be seeking an injunction on France through
the World Court. The politics continue!
Stefanie S. Rixecker
Centre for Resource Management
Lincoln University
Canterbury, Aotearoa New Zealand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
