Posting in Education
Looking for new ways to improve your corporate social responsibility programs? An investment in women's education in emerging nations or regions could have a beneficial impact.
I thought hard about writing this particular blog entry, because it is certain to draw the ire of those in the general public who believe that any kind of family planning goes against nature and certain religious strictures.
But there is a very real link between climate change and the number of people on this planet, which is the view put forth by a newly published report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) called "The State of World Population 2009."
The thrust of the report is twofold:
- First, that women in emerging nations bear the brunt of the negative effects of climate change, such as drought, fierce hurricanes or floods. That's because they rely mainly on agricultural activities to make their living, and because many live in regions susceptible to floods or rising seas and storms.
- And, second, women who have access to education and more economic opportunities tend to have smaller families. This tends to have a beneficial impact on the climate, according to the report, as it contributes to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the long term.
I am not an anthropologist, nor do I have an answer to the question posed in my headline. But as your business looks for additional ways in which to positively effect the environment, it seems logical that you research the role of women's education in the communities where your company could have an impact.
Nov 23, 2009
it is sort of amusing that so many deny that climate change ia occurring just because they have recently had to shovel snow. the bad winter storms we have just had is just an indication that it is winter and we do have snow storms then. climate change is a slow process and it isfortunet that it is not a rapid one or we all might be in trouble. it is sad that so many supposedly educated people have forgotten that almost all scientists agree that climate change is now occurring and warming the planet. the data shows the the scientists what is happening , and though it might be intertreted slkightly differently, science seems to agree what it all eventually means it is okay to have an opposite view, but it would be nice if the view were grounded with , not facts that are cherry picked , but the conclusion given by taking all the facts available. itis also okay if ypour religion tells you abortion is wrong for you, just try not to force others to follow your dictates willy nilly. that never works out too well over the long term, i.e. noone ever expects the spanish inquisition.
There's no argument about the demographics of developed countries regarding lowered birth rates and higher mortality, significant population increases in these countries are largely due to immigration. Immigrants within the first world countries are largely responsible for population increases within these countries. The main issue is that developing countries are in the majority on planet Earth and are significantly adding to the global population. We've already seen huge population increases during the 19th amd 20th centuries (current developed world) and conservative estimates suggest that the rate of increase will continue for at least another half century. The rate of increase is the cause for concern given the established relationship with current human activity and greenhouse gases. Global warming is fact, it's not conjecture. Global warming is increasing. Greenhouse gases are increasingly being released into the atmosphere, the rate of increase can now be seen to be coming from the third world although the first world countries are by far the highest contributors. Developing countries aspire to the lifestyles of the developed world, this is happening in a hugely effective way by virtue of the free market commercial engines of the developed world. As is currently recorded as the worst case, the US on average per person consumption of global hectares of biocapacity is almost 10 global hectares as contrasted to just over 5 for a Western Europeans and just only one half (0.5) for an Indian. This relationship suggests just how the potential increase in greenhouse emissions could be. I'm afraid it also points to us (as a developed country citizen) as to how we need to take ownership amd control for the measures that are required to start to resolve the problem. Herein is real problem. I hope we (the first world) will step up to the mark in time. I don't think this will happen but hope I am wrong. Established science. Tree hugging is good, CO2 consumers whilst they live, greenhouse gas providers when they die. The good logic is that we are doing this to ourselves.
More faulty logic on top of faulty science...hence another faulty belief system akin to another form of religion. Let's get this straight--we are headed towards a global population COLLAPSE. Because of falling birthrates, mostly in the West but also elsewhere. The only thing not happening will be higher mortality among the elderly due to (mostly) better health care. Many societies will collapse or suffer grave changes because there aren't enough children being born to support the generation(s) before them. Enough with the tree-hugging we-humans-are-bad schtick. We're already doing it to ourselves. After another decade or two we'll be kicking the people who pushed this malarky upon us. Bad science, bad beliefs. Wise up, folks.
There needs to be a fundamantal paradigm shift in the way that people relate to the world and each other to resolve these issues. Whilst not remotely religious in the diety worshipping sense I see that the bible actually has most of the answer - the meek shall inherit the earth. As long as humanity careers onward following its instinct to satisfy greed through consumption and appetite for wealth I don't see us lasting much more than a few more generations without natural catastrophic consequence. Unfortunately I think it will come to this to force the paradigm shift unless there's another world war first as an attempt to secure what's left.
The sheer evolution challenged ignorance of the people posting on this site is pathetic. There are too many people for the amount of resources on this planet, and global warming is a fact.
Judging from the replies there are two ways to slow population growth. One is better educated women. The other is to continue failing to educate current and future commenters about not just climate change and population growth, but about problem solving and decision making, how to examine an issue, and critically read an article or email. Basic statistics, actually examining data, avoiding the urge to cherry pick, understanding the exponential function and doubling rate -- all important things to learn. And global warming, be damned! We're still losing an acre of forest each second, and half again as much rangeland to desert. 50-100 species per day -- extinct. Africa will only have enough food for 40% of her people by 2025, and the world will need more food in the next 50 years than in the last 10,000! What makes rain, and what makes desert? We have a lot to learn in a hurry -- or population will decline!! Thank you, Heather, for having the courage to forward this important perspective. One more thing, while we're in learning mode :) Soils hold more carbon than vegetation and atmosphere combined. And soils are depleted. Regenerating soils reduces atmospheric carbon, and can lead to food and water security. Fire plagued Australians are, out of necessity, leading the way on this one. Five, ten, or more tons of CO2 per acre per year turned into topsoil. Multiply by 12 billion acres. Let me know if you need help with the math ;) glenn*
And there are other reports that (surprise, surprise) the sun is the culprit and human activity is dwarfed by that. Of course, if that is true, all the doom-sayers have to look for another living; follow the government money trail and which scientists are living at the public trough as long as panic prevails. This isn't science any longer when alternative studies are suppressed; it's pure politics. Where is the liberty czar?
I remember a story from the news several years ago, around the mid nineties, I think, when two tenured professors made a wager. They were on opposite sides of the population growth debate. Both were anthropologists, as I recall. The wager was for a ten year duration, and between themselves they set certain criteria, perhaps fifty items; to measure quality of life afer the ten years, based upon growth or decline of the population. The winner? The population growth advocate, of course. While the world is not a perfect place; and evil people on the level of Hitler and Hussein will populate the world occassionally; the world responds appropriately and rises up and squashes them like bugs. Their effect on the world; though tragic; is short lived. But consider the geniuses' effect; say for instance on the technological advances in food production. Those effects are far more reaching and have much more longevity than the evil dictators. So we do need those geniuses to be born; and also need warriors to be born to stand ready to squash the bugs that are born and rise to that bug level. Population growth is good; not bad; and you should support it. You know; you decry the Hitlers and Husseins out of one side of your mouth; but seem like you would secretly breathe a sigh of relief for all the population that they destroy out of the other side of your mouths. That is just wrong; and you need to repent of that. So, as you say, we need more arable land; so let's cut down more jungle to make it so!
The human race is spreading like a virus. We are using up more and more natural resources, not because we use more as individuals, but because there are so many of us. As to the question of who should do family planning: everyone everywhere, no exceptions. The lost genius theory could just as well be called the lost evil dictator theory. There are more evil people born anyway than geniuses, and even if a genius would say something important, the average person will either not understand the significance or simply ignore the advice, just as some of the above posters do. Every couple who have more than two children are in practice condemning someone else to have none, or have their children starve. That's why third world children starve, there are let's say eight children with only food for four. No matter how the food is shared four are going to die. There is massive unemployment because there are too many people and too few jobs. There is lots of pollution because nature can only neutralize a certain amount of poison. There is lots of crime because there can not be enough things for everybody. We just can't make six billion cars, refridgerators, swimmingpools, TVs or whatever so that everyone can get one. Look at all the traffic queues in big cities, they are there because there are too many people. Nature controls large populations by reducing them with illnesses. We have stopped that for a while with medicines, but natures principles will soon resume. Why do You think all these viruses are sweeping the earth, quicker and quicker each time. What does it take to make YOU see that we are just darn too many already. For someone to have many children is not a human right, if it means that someone else's child is going to suffer for it. This is not an opinion, this is an undisputed fact.
Interesting thing is, that generally (certainly not all) the reason higher educated women tend to have smaller families is not because they are deciding to 'save the environment', but because they are being more distracted from thinking about and doing family creation during their most fertile years - and they tend to have a more developed desire for self-centered meaning in their lives than do mothers of naturally large, two-parent families. Much more often than not, we run into higher-educated women who wish they had not waited so long to get married and have children... and now they often can't have their own biological children.
In the US about the time of the American Civil War there was a political movement called the 'Know Nothings'. I see it was just sleeping not dead. Malthus wasn't wrong, he just was not able to predict the technological advances that enabled disaster to be postponed, note postponed not averted. Just remeber that the chances for the birth of a Hitler is just as likely as the supposed genius who will 'solve the problem for us all'. wpelletier is correct, basic education of women in societies that have not traditionally done so is one of the best ways to reduce population as so many studies have shown. Family size goes down and health and economies grow.
I didn't want to read this article when I saw the headline published in ZDNet.com but I was very curious to see what comments were made (to get a feel for what people really belive, Al Gore's fraud or truth that weather is weather and man does not affect it). It appears majority feels as I do on the issue with exception of those that stand to financially gain by adding more and more taxes on the people. I also despise the United Nations in its entirety, it is a club house for the most corrupt people in the world all gathered together to enslave and/or kill us. Should they ever be given the right to decide who lives and who dies? They are not God nor should they have any say over any one else's lifestyle. Matthew 7:3 ""Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
The events mentioned are weather events. They are typical occurrences and characteristic to certain areas around the globe. They have created disasters when people accept the risk when they are located within the hazardous areas. Address the logic of that and ask why do people put themselves into harms way? Slowing the effects of climate change though? Ludicrous. The way that this article is written makes it appear that climate is static and any aberration is from nice and clear is the dramatic effects of the dreaded climate change. Really now. Anyway, the connections that you are looking for concern the concepts of population growth rate, cultural behaviors, resource consumption, land use, carrying capacity, education, technology, lifestyle, and demographic change. For the large part, these are social matters. But relating them to the current climate change debate when the natural hazards are as real as they have been for ages? Maybe you're brainstorming and begging for discussion but doesn't SmartPlanet require articles to have some polish before publishing? C'mon now don't risk your credibility like this. The way the article is presented makes it appear that any social or environmental concern may be tossed into a bowl and mixed to become part of a climate change salad.
Who should control their population? the emerging countries where one person emits 0.1 ton of Carbon per annum or those in developed world where the figure is 20 ton per annum? A bit of common sense is necessary in these grave matters.
In my book, "world without war, made possible by empowered individuals", I touch on population growth as a major environmental risk factor. At amazon.com you can look and search inside. Population growth also effects the rapidly shrinking arable land available per head of population. Here is a quote from my book: Arable land is limited and, apart from the oceans, it is the only source of food production. Of this planet?s 148 million square kilometres of land, approximately 31 million are arable; however, arable land is being lost at the rate of over 100,000 km? per year as a result of urban sprawl and drought. If this is seen against a growing population, it becomes clear that arable land per head of the world?s population is reducing at an alarming rate. While it was a mere 0.51 ha per person in the year 2000, it will become about 0.34 ha per caput in 2050, a reduction of 33 per cent or one third. If scientific predictions of rising oceanic water levels resulting from the melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice eventuate, then available arable land will shrink even more as a result of flooded deltas and low-lying islands being submerged.
Well, Heather, you certainly suceeded in bringing out the know-nothings ... even the ones who proudly announce that they ignore sources of information they don't want to hear. When the food runs out, who will they blame, I wonder? Certianly not themselves, divinely entitled as they are to everything they consume.
Have you no ability to read the data yourself? We're in a period of Global Cooling and have been for about 100 years, and are about 200 years from its peak. Also, we could not significantly affect the average temperature of this planet even if we wanted to do so. Solar radiation--controlled largely by cosmic dust and solar flares--are the primary cause of changes to our surface temperature (which, by the way, we have yet to develop an accurate way to measure).
They used to say the planet was going to cool down and it got warmer so Al Gore jumped on the bandwagon and invented "Global Warming" and it got colder. Then they repackaged Global Warming into Global Climate Change. Do you see a pattern here? Time to distinguish junk science from real science.
Climate change is due to many causes; not just temperature (though the cooling effect of the melting ice caps might give the sceptics more encouragement). Population increase is the main factor. In Australia we are running out of water and many of the river systems are dying. More people more demand on resources. Its simple really (yes I class myself as one of morons who believe population control will be necessary) - just look at the NASA picture of the nightsky. Imagine this coverage doubled by the year 2050. Imagine the ncreased demand, land clearing, and of course outputs. Nope - as someone said, not rocket science.
It is funny they never mention that the average temperature is still below the 12th cenrury, when the European building boom occured. They fail to mention that the temperature has been dropping for the last nine years. How is having fewer babies going to make the sun warmer or cooler? Are these people really that stupid or do they think that I am? The temperature of the Earth is directly related to sunspot activity as proven by long term observations over several centeries as oppesed to their 'evidence' of a few years.
just a simple thought: if the world population were, say, one tenth of the present one (i. e. ~ 600 millions people) we would not have any of these problems: exhaustion of mineral resources; waste disposal; urban congestion; forests depletion; endangered animal & vegetal species; air pollution - this is just a start for the list of present issues. And, please, somebody should give a rational explanation of why the mankind needs to grow in number indefinitely. 'Cause, you know, I already read that mother Earth could support 40 billions humans: but what about 400 billions, and up? since the Earth's surface measures about 511 billions square meters (oceans included) only people able to stand always up, like horses, will have room to stay ... well, at least those fortunate guys will be saved from blowing snow out of driveway, oops, feet.
Hmm. This is the Population Bomb all over again. Of course we don't really have to worry about it any more, as we've all been dead for decades based on our overpopulation. Oh wait, we got past the 1970's, didn't we? Never mind. Good grief, when will the human-hating segment of the population take its own medicine and leave us alone?
What Ms. Clancy did not say, but is true, is that as women become better educated, they on average have fewer children. Ms. Clancy did not indicate contraceptive education, just education and I believe that this is the solution to many of our problems. We don?t need more babies to create more male geniuses; we just need to empower the multitude of untapped female geniuses so that we can solve our problems. I happen to believe that reduced population will be part of the solution, but I am certain that more educated women will get us to the solution much faster.
I could find a monkey off the street that could of written a more intelligent article than this. I don't pay attention to anything the UN, WHO, or whatever globalist leftist organization out there. One of the other readers alluded to what is coming out now. Scientists colluding to either surpress the true reality or making up lies to create the myth called climate change. How pathetic. It is time to move past this garbage now ! Many of us already know that global warming is a big lie. I am busy getting my snow blower ready.
The ignorance never stops. First of all, who in their right mind would give even the slightest credence to anything reported by the UN? Think about all of the moronic things that have come out of that body of shameful political posturing. Secondly, birth rates definitely fall with education and wealth. Not because they've seen the "light of lowering their carbon footprint" but because they are getting better health care and their kids are surviving. Where are the great overpopulation disasters predicted since Malthus? The world is healthier, with longer lives and better standards of living on every level. Are their still poor? Of course, but the poor today are often in better shape than 50 years ago. The imagined effects of global warming (they haven't happened yet and are only predicted, hence imagined) are impossible to tell where the worst effects will occur, if they will occur at all. And why women? What happened to the men? Are they impervious to floods and droughts? You should be ashamed of pumping out this blather.
I've often thought that "assisted" conception was questionable both in terms of impact on health care costs and environmentally. We can't keep increasing the population on this planet indefinitely and the space program certainly is not maturing fast enough. My heartfelt sympathies to everyone with conception problems, but be responsible and say no.
climate scare tactics being used again to promote senseless socio-political ideology of reducing the population. get over it, global warming is a myth. and the only places there is overpopulation is in the urban areas.
There is much more to this article than discussed. Families are the consumers of products and do have a direct influence on environmental issues. Unless we have people with hand tools expending energy to make products or packaging, we rely on manufacturing to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity and make products. The more we make, the greater the emissions and there is a direct domino effect into our bodies where health is affected. Avoiding climate change is imperative as heating the atmosphere changes weather, water, agriculture and everything we do. Now that the cause of urban heat islands has been found, people can paint their existing house a responsible color to stop the heat, ozone depletion, acid rain, mercury emissions while eliminating their urban heat island immediately. Here are links showing a time-lapsed infrared video of buildings becoming urban heat islands early in the morning. The 3rd video shows you how people are cooked in their own buildings. http://www.thermoguy.com/urbanheat.html Families have the choice and pay the price either way.
Well, with the recent story breaking about the environmental center's servers being hacked and thus revealing emsils that essentially revealed that global warming is a farce; I am somewhat dissapointed that the scientists have NOT delivered on their promise of warming, because its darn cold here in winter; and I'd rather be warm. And I think so would all the many more people who die during extreme cold than extreme heat every year!
History is devoid of any nation surviving because of reduced childbirth. it just doesn't happen. All it takes is one genius to devise a means of coping with today's problems to alieviate the additional burden millions place on any infrastructure. It shouldn't take rocket science to figure out that by killing off a nation's rocket scientists is going to result in stagnation.
Since even "birth control" pills are abortifacients, we may have already murdered the genius who could have solved the problem for us all.
The only bad part is that I can't figure out if I'm a clown or if I'm someone in the stands watching clowns. Either way, I'm still hoping the lions get out and go after the ring leader, err... political leaders.
I'm not meaning to industry, but to people! Here's a great example of how our welfare states themselves are the greatest contributor to the carbon footprint: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2741085/Mum-of-13-I-wont- stop-until-Ive-had-twins.html Here's an unmarried "mum" who's on kid 13, and says she's going to keep going at least until she achieves her dream of having twins. And why shouldn't she? It's all made possible by a social services net that pays all her hospital bills and at this point rewards her around $83,000/year for having so many kids, and will continue to do so.