Porritt on population

[cedric]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/telegraphtv/?ID=News&bcpid=1452197391&bclid=1453516501&bctid=1591631581

Jonathan Porrit argues that more money should be spent on reducing population numbers.

[cedric]

1. more

onathon Porritt: Britain should have 'zero net immigration' policy
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 06/06/2008

Britain should set an example to the world by reversing its steeply-rising population growth and allowing no more people into the country than leave, the Government's chief "green" adviser has said.

Urban population to exceed 50 per cent
Record immigration sees UK population soar
England to be most crowded in Europe
Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, said it was entirely possible to be "very progressive" on immigration while still having a policy of "zero net immigration" and no further population growth.



Jonathon Porritt: Britian should be 'progessive' on immigration
Mr Porritt told an audience at the Cheltenham Science Festival, he would like to see Britain's population on a declining trend, instead of increasing to 65 million in ten years and to 70 million by 2031.

Mr Porritt, who is a patron of the charity, the Optimum Population Trust, warned that globally spending on family planning was "massively" lower than the £8 billion spent on HIV/Aids.

Yet it should be around £12.5 billion to £15 billion if the world was to avoid a population of more than 9 billion or more by 2050.

Mr Porritt warned that in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, population trends were increasing "disastrously" because of low spending on family planning.

In Kenya and Ethiopia, spending on family planning was now running at 2 per cent of spending on HIV/Aids. As a result the population of Kenya, which had been thought to be around 40 million by the mid-century was now expected to be 80 million.

"We are guaranteeing an unstoppable flow of problems like HIV and Aids into the future," he said.

Mr Porritt said there were "complex cultural and religious reasons" why globally family planning had such a low priority.

"I've highlighted the malign combination of a Catholic church which sees contraception as a wicked sin, a religious, ideological approach to family planning in the United States, politically correct and ignorant environmentalists and development economists."

He said it was "incomprehensible" why environmentalists and development economists would not acknowledge the significance of family planning and population policies.

In fact, if one looked at the amount of carbon it would be possible to emit in 2050, without contributing to dangerous climate change, it was 10 billion tons of carbon, around one ton per person.

The larger the world's population was the more uncomfortable that would be, but if the right policies were adopted 30 years earlier it would be possible to keep the world's population at around 8 billion.

Mr Porritt said people were uneasy talking about family planning as a means of reducing population growth. "Politicians won't touch it because they think it will get them into trouble on immigration policy."

Others thought "it takes you into China's one child per family and other authoritarian policies." But he highlighted the example of Iran, where population growth had been halted simply through education, backed by religious leaders.

Around the world, he said, it was a universal truth that the longer girls remained in education, the fewer children they had. Mr Porritt said that the prevailing assumption of UN economists that population growth would fall as the world got richer was out of sync with the need for the human race to live within environmental limits.

"We can't wait for Bangladesh to get rich enough to do something about it. It will be game over for human kind at that point."

[Warpy]

2. Typical, focuses on family planning without treating

the underlying problem: women in too many overpopulated areas have no worth beyond the number of sons they birth.

Once you start giving women the tools they need to rise above being chattel, and those tools can be very modest ones, like a cell phone in a village with no outside communication, these women will start limiting the number of children they have as a matter of course.

This has been proven in place after place, culture after culture.

Coming in and insisting women who have no value beyond producing sons use birth control is doomed to failure before it starts.

Men like Porrit don't like to think about that part. They think they can command.

[Boomer]

3. Hmm, that only goes so far

I work in IT, where all my co-workers are highly educated white collar employees with good salaries.

Over half the married men have at least 3 children, one just had his fourth, and another has seven. This may not equal 3rd world country brood rates, but it's still way beyond what we need to bring population numbers down.

[suziedemocrat]

7. I work in IT too, all the men on my team have two children.

I have none. (One of the men on my team has two adopted children and no biological children.)

I do however, have some very well-off, super-Catholic, divorced male cousins who have 6 or 7 children apiece. I think one reason is there seems to be an increase in fundamentalist Catholics, and secondly, if you have more than one wife, you might want a family with both women. (Divorce is not-so-very-Catholic, but there you go.)

[Warpy]

8. And their WIVES?

Are they stay at home mommies or do they have something else?

[Boomer]

15. Snark much?

To the best of my knowledge, all of these men have married women with college (and even graduate school) educations. So despite high education, they still see a large family as a desirable goal. Most of them are stay-at-home mothers, which when you have 3 or 4 kids is a sound decision both emotionally and economically.

Perhaps they would have had 10 plus kids in former times, but my point is that 3 or 4 is STILL too many.

[Warpy]

16. Snark often

and YOU don't get to make the rules for other people.

However, you confirmed my point. These women, while educated, have no real marketable skills. Taking even a year out of a working life can cripple a woman's career.

It's called the "mommy track" and might explain why they decided to lengthen the "stay at home mom" work description by having more children.

[Deja Q]

10. Don't worry, their jobs will be offshored soon enough.

:crazy:

[bhikkhu]

5. Education is the key for women.

Or the one great correlation in the population growth charts is women's education to birthrate. The less a society provides for the education of girls and women, the higher the birthrate, and then the converse, of course.

Not to say anything specific about any individual or even any individual culture, but it is something that can be pursued and accomplished even in this administration.

[Warpy]

9. My point is that education that takes years

isn't the only way to do these things.

Enough money for a couple of cases of shampoo can get a shop started for some of these women, and that's often enough to motivate them to use the birth control that is available.

Yes, we want their daughters educated. However, we need to start with women who are here now.

This is something we can do. All it takes is $25 invested through Kiva or another peer to peer microloan group online.

[bhikkhu]

13. That's true, there is a great deal to be done.

But I think planning for solid and predictable improvement in 6 to 10 years through permanent educational goals is well worthwhile, and should be done in any case in conjunction with more immediate needs.

[suziedemocrat]

6. It DOES seem to be that the focus needs to be on gender equality throughout the world.

That really seems to solve a lot of problems.

[Deja Q]

12. Unless it interferes with their religious and cultural norms.

There's a thorny issue to consider.

[Deja Q]

11. One good reason FOR globalization, actually.

Trouble is, it still seems more like 'migration' than 'expansion'.

[The2ndWheel]

14. The underlying problem?

The sedentary lifestyle?

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. K&R No overpopulation, no food crises, GW, deforestation, etc, etc