I'm with you 100%. One of the problems with the population control folk
is that they do not address overconsumption and materialism in the
west...
> ----------
> Sent: October 13, 1998 11:28 AM
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> Subject: Family size & sustainability
>
>
> The average American uses as much resources as 400 Kenyans. This,
> according to Worldwatch Institute in D.C. Something to consider when
> you
> are evaluating/contemplating family size.
>
> Arlene
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 13 10:35:48 1998
From: Candi Chruchill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: family size,etc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:26:43 -0400
I haven't been following this whole debate, so maybe this has been said,
but let's not forget that when we get into this issue, WOMEN are the people
we are talking about controlling. Women must have control over our bodies,
not governments, not environmentalists, not men. Women have been
sterilized against their will for being poor or from the "Third World" or
of "Third World" background or immigrants or of certain religious
backgrounds; we've also been forced to have abortions/take birth control,
been denied abortions/birth control and forced pregnancy. some of us who
have money can control our bodies, but even these women do not have
complete access. We do not live in a world where women control their
bodies. Economics, male supremacy, and conservative forces limit our
freedom, in every country in the world. Let us not forget that limiting
family size, whatever the intentions might be, often hurts women. The
people in control of this world at this moment are not sensitive to human
rights; the rich and male segments of our global community (even in the
ecological movement) are often very biased (i.e., racist, sexist and profit
driven). Please keep these things in mind because when (eco)feminists
start advocating for population control without making these points, it is
scary. Who will consider these things if WE aren't?!
Candi Churchill
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 8:57 AM
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
I certainly agree with you on the limiting of children per family. In the
60s a little-known writer/scientist at the time Isaac Asimov wrote of the
future problems with population and the need to lessen family-size to
maximize the continuation of life on this planet. At the time it was
probably a radical idea, but now it is far more feasible and necessary.
IMHO,
Bertina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, bunny wrote:
>
> What is the answer? In my opinion a global acceptance (over time) of a
one
> or two children limit on children per family and enforcement of recycling
> through
> controling manufacturers outputs and that everyone turns vegetarian/vegan
> (no more intensively farmed animals).
>
> The radical steps necessary to save what is left of the earth will be
fought
> by many religions and capitalists and therefore it will be very hard to
> reconcile religious beliefs and Ecofeminism (in my view).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marguerite
>
>
>
>
