On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Cotter_Cindy wrote: > An earlier article in The Economist mentioned that if all the land in the > Phillipines were evenly divided among the people, there wouldn't be enoug= h per > person to support them. The World Watch paper says this is also the case= in > much of Africa. What follows is an article that I wrote for Solidarity's youth paper=20 _Left Turn_ that has some of these stats about halfway down. I know the=20 pitch of this article is a little low for pen-l and I hope nobody takes=20 it personally. :) All the same I still stand by it and I think some of=20 the ideas and stats in ther are quite relevent to the discussion. Apologies to Trond and to John Ernst: I'm not going to be able to get=20 back to your posts for a few days. This is pride weekend in New YYork=20 and ACT UP is also doing a major demo on Wednesday and I'm very very=20 busy. I want to be able to spend the time to respond carefully. Maybe=20 Thrusdayish or if I find some time before then. Cheers, Tavis thus invented modern overpopulation theory=20 w Overpopulation or Underdevelopment?=20 =20 by Tavis Barr=20 =20 =09Some arguments are worse than vampires. They are killed, come=20 back to haunt their enemies, and consequently get nailed to the inside=20 of their coffin and have a stake driven through their heart; and even=20 so, they somehow manage to resurface years later to haunt the world. =20 Such is the case with Thomas Malthus=92 Essay on the Principle of=20 Population of 1798. Malthus invented modern overpopulation theory=20 with his =93scientific=94 formulation: that population increases=20 geometrically (1,2,4,8) while food supply only increases=20 arithmetically (1,2,3,4), and hence the world was destined to poverty=20 because it was overpopulated. This argument was the basis for a=20 cornerstone of classical economic theory, that humanity was doomed to=20 subsistence-level living, because any increase in food supply or=20 industrial productivity would cause an increase in the population that=20 would cancel out any wealth gained.=20 =09Malthus=92 theory was used by the English ruling classes to justify=20 poverty. Misery was inevitable, since the world was destined to be=20 overpopulated, and so Malthus=92 arguments were used to overturn the=20 Poor Laws in 1802. However, over the course of the subsequent 150=20 years or so, Malthus=92 theories were disproved in a number of ways. =20 Initially, Marx used Darwin=92s theory of evolution to point out that=20 the laws by which human population increased were no different from=20 the laws that increased the populations of the animals that humans=20 eat; he suggested that it was the laws of capitalism, and not=20 overpopulation, which caused widespread misery. More importantly,=20 though, growth in agricultural productivity over the next century far=20 outstripped growth in population, while the industrial revolution=20 provided the bulk of people in industrialized countries with a=20 standard of living that was well above subsistence level.=20 =09Unfortunately, one of the places that the Malthus vampire has=20 resurfaced is in an upper-middle-class section of the reproductive=20 rights movement. It was with a certain amount of frustration and=20 dismay that I found myself back in 1990 at NOW=92s annual convention,=20 arguing with the chair of their Global Feminism Task Force, who=20 addressed a workshop with Malthus=92 famous mathematical puzzler. =20 Arguments which were once used to demoralize the English working class=20 are now used to keep the Third World in check, and it seems that a=20 wealthy section of the reproductive rights movement has joined the=20 overpopulation chorus, chiming in with the World Bank and others in=20 the hope that it will promote legal abortion in developing countries. =20 One major point this group seems to have missed is that unlike in the=20 US, the main fight for women=92s reproductive freedom in many developing=20 countries -- especially in India and Latin America -- is against forced=20 sterilization and, in India, forced abortion, for which=20 "overpopulation" is used as a principal justification.=20 =09The government was able to manipulate this rhetoric in order to=20 tack a largely racist addendum onto what was otherwise a clear and=20 well-deserved victory for the reproductive rights movement. This=20 February [1993 - TB], President Clinton (no doubt influenced by his=20 environment-friendly veep) signed an executive order which, in addition to= =20 allowing experimental testing for RU-486 and allowing federally-funded=20 clinics to provide abortions, granted monies for family planning to=20 developing countries in the name of population control. It is true=20 that this third part of the executive order was not altogether bad;=20 some of the money the U.S. government has spent on global family=20 planing did go to providing abortion services under the Carter=20 administration. But much of it has always gone to forced=20 steriliations. Thus, the Agency for International Development (AID)=20 ran a campaign in El Salvador which employed American nurses to=20 provide sterilizations, with a minimum quota of performing 80 per=20 year. Meanwhile, some 40% of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age=20 have been sterilized, largely by government-sponsored programs. The=20 section of the reproductive rights movement that supports population=20 control is indeed treading in dangerous waters. One might hope that=20 they would consult with third-world women next time before praising a=20 "feminist" policy decision in their name.=20 =09Perhaps even more devastating than the effect of population=20 control on the reproductive freedom of women in developing countries,=20 though, is the way overpopulation arguments are used to excuse and=20 even justify famine, underdevelopment, and general reckless treatment=20 of the Earth=92s resources. During the Ethiopian famine of the mid- 1980s, our TV=92s were filled with images of desert countrysides jam- packed with children, leading us to believe that the local land could=20 not possibly support such an absurdly large population. Yet in=20 reality, population density is much lower in Ethiopia than in most=20 developed countries. In fact, it has been speculated that southern=20 Ethiopia produced enough food to feed the north, and the famine could=20 have been avoided if the government had simply let food be=20 distributed; in any event, agricultural production per capita is=20 generally higher in developed countries than in developing countries,=20 even though land per capita is much lower. =20 =09Europe, for example, generally produces more than Latin America,=20 even though it has barely half as much arable land per capita. =20 Although Africa has the smallest amount of arable land per capita=20 (.233 hectares in 1980, compared with .28 in Europe, .514 in Latin=20 America and .276 worldwide), it suffers far more from relatively=20 backward production methods. In wheat production, for example, Europe=20 could boast 2.95 tons per hectare in the 1970s, while Africa could=20 only produce 1; North America, the great wheat producer, was in the=20 middle at 2.04. While this may in some cases be due to poor soil, the=20 differences in production methods are dramatic: most of North America=20 and Europe is planted and harvested with specialized machines, while=20 in much of Africa, oxen and even hand tilling are predominant methods.=20 =09In spite of these differences, agricultural production growth has=20 continuously outpaced population growth, except in some of the poorest=20 countries. One major exception is India, which has prioritized=20 industry over modernizing the agricultural sector; however, much of=20 the agricultural slowdown of the poorest countries is rooted in civil=20 wars and reckless regimes. Despite low agricultural growth in low- income countries in the 1960s, growth in the rest of the developing=20 world was more than enough to compensate, while agricultural growth=20 per capita in the developed world has been impressive. There is=20 therefore no excuse for the widespread hunger that exists today. If,=20 for example, American farmers were paid to grow wheat for developing=20 countries instead of being paid not to grow it, a great deal of hunger=20 could be eliminated; moreover, if the developed countries would=20 actually donate a modest amount of farming equipment to developing=20 countries, production would go up tremendously, especially in areas=20 where the food is needed most.=20 =09Despite the reassuring facts about food, the Earth=92s resources=20 are being depleted by air and water pollution. Even in the=20 agricultural sector itself, soil erosion and unnecessary pestcides=20 threaten the continued fertility of farmlands. But is population=20 growth to blame for pollution? If it were, one might expect to see=20 pollution increases mirror population growth. Instead, what one finds=20 is rather startling. In The Pollution Crisis, Ronald Reosti cites a=20 study of the Committee on Environmental Alterations of the American=20 Association for the Advancement of Science:=20 =09"Between 1946 and 1968 population increased 48 percent. During=20 the same period Gross National Product rose 59 percent. But at the=20 same time various measurable pollution levels rose anywhere from 200=20 to 1,000 percent. They showed a direct correlation between pollution=20 and a small number of specific industries and chemical processes. In=20 the period studied, consumption of plastics increased 1,024 percent;=20 use of mercury in industry, 2,150 percent; consumption of synthetic=20 organic chemicals, 495 percent; use of nitrogen fertilizer, 534=20 percent; detergents, 300 percent; and electric power, 276 percent."=20 =09The study concluded:=20 =09"The predominant factor in our industrial society=92s increased=20 environmental degradation is neither population nor affluence, but the=20 increasing environmental impact per unit of production due to=20 environmental changes.... Thus, in seeking public policies to=20 alleviate environmental degradation, it must be recognized that a=20 stable population with stable consumption patterns would still face=20 increasing environmental problems if the environmental impact of=20 production continues to increase."=20 =09In spite of such shocking pollution levels, our government has=20 continued to loosen environmental regulations for many industries. =20 Dan Quayle=92s main occupation, the Council on Competitiveness, was set=20 up mainly for this purpose. In addition to bowing to corporate=20 America, though, the U.S. government has made a name for itself as the=20 Chief Polluter of the Oceans. During the height of the Cold War,=20 "low-level radioactive waste" -- such marginally harmful chemicals as=20 mercury and plutonium -- was dumped at sea in erodable barrels, many in=20 large ports such as Boston Harbor or San Fransisco Bay, causing damage=20 that continues to increase as these barrels rust through. =20 =09Meanwhile corporate America has made its own long-term policy=20 decisions. Thus, subway systems in many cities were bought out by =20 oil companies who replaced them with gas-consuming busses and private=20 cars; no major automobile manufacturer has marketed a solar car,=20 despite the fact that many models are available and inexpensive to=20 produce; and U.S. companies have pursued nuclear power, which is=20 cheaper than solar power only if you don=92t take the cost of risking a=20 meltdown into account.=20 =09Even the soil erosion problem itself would not be a problem if=20 farming equipment were equitably distributed. New techniques, such as=20 chisel plowing, slit planting, and no-till planting, have been=20 invented which can nearly stop soil erosion without decreasing=20 production when added to the traditional soil-conservation techniques=20 of terracing and contour plowing. But the necessary equipment is=20 expensive, and poorer farmers on marginal lands and, most notably,=20 farmers in developing countries, could never afford it.=20 =09So here we are in a world with widespread famine despite an=20 abundance of food; irreversible soil erosion despite the technology to=20 stop it; massive destruction of forest lands for paper despite a low=20 rate of recycling; and a disappearing ozone layer despite means of=20 transportation that are more cost-effective and eco-friendly than=20 automobiles. All of these problems are absurd; yet all would require=20 drastic changes in the economic order to fix. Put differently, the=20 world has a long way to go before it becomes overpopulated, but=20 capitalism may destroy the Earth=92s natural resources within our=20 lifetimes. No wonder poor, helpless people in third-world countries=20 look like such an easy target! When England was beset with misery,=20 the government could blame the working class for reproducing; when the=20 world economy collapsed in the 1930s, the German government could=20 blame the Jews for surviving; and now that our planet looks like it=20 might be on the way to becoming uninhabitable, wouldn=92t it be nice to=20 think that it=92s the fault of all of those colored people in far-off=20 countries for simply being alive?=20 =09All of those who really wanted the world to be smaller, though,=20 may have some hope if we can change our socio-economic system. In=20 fact, real economic development has more than just the advantage of=20 feeding people; industrialized countries also have much lower=20 population growth rates. There are two main reasons for this. First,=20 wealthier families do not need a lot of children to tend the house and=20 the farm. But more importantly, women who are better off and more=20 socially liberated are no longer forced to consider raising children=20 as part of their essential role. In Population, Demography and=20 Policy, Weller and Bouvier write:=20 =09"Differences in family size are also related to the participation=20 of females in the paid labor force. Studies conducted in the=20 developed countries have usually shown that the greater participation=20 of women in the labor force, the lower the fertility. Moreover, the=20 higher the wage a female worker can obtain, the lower her=20 fertility.... In the developing countries.... the probability of=20 observing a decline in fertility with employment is greater (1) in=20 urban areas than in rural areas, (2) if the wife works for pay rather=20 than as an unpaid or self-employed worker, (3) if she works away from=20 home rather than at home, and (4) if she has a white-collar occupation=20 rather than some other occupation."=20 =09I can only guess, then, that it might come as a bit of a surprise=20 to Molly Yard and some of the upper-middle-class NOW leadership that=20 third-world women are quite capable of liberating themselves without=20 the white woman=92s burden of providing access to sterilization. What=20 this section of the reproductive rights movement might be a bit less=20 willing to burden itself with is the thought of giving up some wealth=20 to alleviate the pressures on Mother Earth. But maintaining this=20 position will only further alienate women of color from organizations=20 such as NOW and further divide an already too weak struggle for=20 women=92s liberation.=20 =09I might, however, suggest a reason for optimism that the=20 reproductive rights movement might distance itself as a whole from=20 population control. As the legal right to an abortion for wealthy=20 women over 18 becomes secure, the movement must -- and, I believe from=20 seeing the dynamism and openness of this movement, will -- focus on=20 access for young and marginalized women. This requires the=20 reproductive rights movement building links with organizations of poor=20 women, women of color, and women from underdeveloped countries. The=20 dialogue that will have to take place as such coalitions are being=20 built -- a process which is already beginning -- will force upper- middle-class women to listen to the voices of their more marginalized=20 sisters if these coalitions are to survive. =20 =09Given the attempt by the government to co-opt the more privileged=20 and powerful end of the movement, wealthy reproductive rights=20 activists are at a crossroads: either they can pack up their bags and=20 sit on their concessions, or they can expand their fight and join a=20 more comprehensive women=92s liberation movement. Discovering the full=20 landscape of women=92s oppression will hopefully help the more=20 privileged activists alleviate themselves of some of their cultural=20 baggage, and throw their scandalous "overpopulation" arguments into=20 the dustbin of history where they belong.=20
