"There is a lot of research showing a connection between population and a variety of environmental problems," including greenhouse gas emissions (especially carbon dixoide), deforestation, depletion of fisheries, and loss of biodiversity, says Richard York,
a sociology professor at the University of Oregon who researches these issues. "The consumption of energy and materials is fairly closely linked to population — although there are many factors, especially economic growth, that are also important — and thus
in general population plays an important role in resource depletion and waste generation."
York doesn't use the term "population control" because "it sounds of something coercive and nefarious"; nor does he advocate the kind of coercive measures that have given that phrase such a bad name. Indeed, global attempts to control population have a sordid
history that includes forced abortion, sterilization, and infanticide. The most well-known example of population control's unintended consequences is in the case of China, where many families have aborted female fetuses in order to comply with the nation's
one-child policy and the culture's preference for males; the country now has a deeply skewed gender ratio. Still, York, like many other scientists and eco-activists, believes that the relationship between overpopulation and environmental degradation needs
to be discussed.
But Matthew Connelly, a professor of history at Columbia University, and the author of
Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population, disagrees with the fundamental premise of population control — or whatever you want to call it — not to mention its rhetoric. The issue, he says, is not influencing how many people
there are in the world, but how those people are living. "It's not a population crisis, it's a consumption crisis," he says.
According to the
Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, industrialized countries, with only twenty percent of the world's population, are responsible for eighty percent of the accumulated carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere. The U.S. is the worst
offender; in 2002, it was responsible for twenty tons of carbon dioxide emissions per person, compared to only 0.2 tons in Bangladesh, 0.3 in Kenya and 3.9 in Mexico.
Industrialized countries, with only 20% of the world's population, are responsible for 80% of the accumulated carbon dioxide build-up.
Connelly notes a study that found that large households generally consume less than small households. "That is the thing we should be worried about," says Connelly. "Instead of launching a campaign telling people to try to have fewer kids, we should point
to the fact that we now insist on having more bathrooms per household than people."
It certainly made sense for readers of Kuczynski's Times article to assume that her offspring would be a participant in this flagrant culture of consumption that celebrates ten-room mansions and thirteenth birthday parties more ostentatious than
most weddings. In that sense, the commenters who lambasted the author as an environmental menace were correct. And, in fact, the consumption issue explains why discussions about population control are focusing more and more on Americans, including those that
are white and middle-class.
York adds that we should think about the global consequences of reproductive technology in terms of consumption. How we prioritize resources "is a legitimate issue to be concerned about," he says. He wonders about "all the research and money
that go into increasing fertility for a handful of rich people. It's a question of whether this is a good use of the world's resources."
A question that many of the country's singles and gays who want to have families, or the 7.3 million people in the U.S. who are struggling with infertility, would probably rather not think about.
It's easy to see how the moral condemnation lobbed at the ur-privileged Kuczynski or the mentally unhinged Suleman could quickly translate into a more general critique of many American women's reproductive choices — and it has. Certainly, the rhetoric of
personal responsibility that many proponents of environmentalism use to make their point sounds eerily familiar. The idea that women who have not followed the laws of biology — that have dared to put off childbearing while in pursuit of a PhD, a corner office,
the right mate, a nest egg — are selfish has been around at least since the backlash to the second wave of the women's movement. The ideology of population control is "a way of blaming women," says Betsy Hartmann, director of the Population and Development
Program at Hampshire College.
©2009 Kara Jesella and Babble Media
About the Author
|
|
Related Articles
|
|
Kara Jesella is a co-author of How Sassy Changed My Life: A Love
Letter to the Greatest Teen Magazine of All Time and a frequent
contributor to The New York Times.
|
|
|
-
by Katie Allison Granju
Why is it crazy to want six kids?
-
by Ada Calhoun
The Jolie-Pitts' pediatrician debunks adoption myths
-
by Jennifer Block
What does it take for one woman to carry another's baby?
|
