Quantcast
Connect with us

‘Population Bomb’ scientist: ‘Nobody’ has the right to ‘as many children as they want’

Published

on

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”

“The only criticism we’ve had on the paper is that it’s too optimistic,” said Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. “You can’t negotiate with nature.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The study, published  the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal earlier this month says that climate change is “driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens‘ aggregate consumption.”

“Overall, careful analysis of the prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will save us or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use,” the paper continued. The way to stop this is to “stop treating population growth as a ‘given’ and consider the nutritional, health and social benefits of humanely ending growth well below nine billion and starting a slow decline. This would be a monumental task, considering the momentum of population growth. Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion.”

“Giving people the right to have as many people as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” Ehrlich told Raw Story. “It’s not giving people the right to have as many children as they want, it’s giving people the right to control their reproduction so that they don’t have so many children that their children’s and grandchildren’s lives are in danger.”

“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich continued. “That may be a hard-nosed view, but if you look at the entire situation, it’s crystal clear if we keep the populations of the rich growing, then the poor aren’t going to have a chance, and eventually, the descendants of the rich aren’t going to have a chance either.”

Ehrlich’s argument is one that he’s been making since 1968, when he published The Population Bomb, a work that argued unimpeded population growth would lead to mass starvation. His argument wasn’t necessarily warmly received among reproductive rights activists, who favored allowing women to make their own choices rather than placing limits on population. A 1994 United Nations conference in Cairo marked the point at which women’s rights activists began to highlight dangerous outgrowths of population control policies, including sex-selective abortion and forced sterilizations, debunking many of the policies that were guided by the Population Bomb and re-taking control of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice and a scholar on women’s rights, responded to Ehrlich’s remarks in an email to Raw Story. “An enormous amount of progress has been made over the past 20 years, especially since Cairo to frame fertility control as a rights and empowerment of women issue. To be clear that things like China’s one child policy and other efforts to legally limit or mandate how many children a woman should have are simply violations of human rights and can’t be tolerated.”

She continued that Ehrlich’s self-described “hard-nosed” comment that no one should have more than two children “is simply counter productive to expanding the circle of those concerned about both population growth and also very committed to a rights based approach to fertility control. It revives old baggage and suspicion of the depth of commitment environmentalists really have for women’s empowerment.”

“I worry that Ehrlich sets back the possibility of greater feminist attention to the importance of climate change — which if not changed will so seriously damage the lives of women,” Kissling said. “Feminists do need to become a larger part of the discussion regarding climate change and sustainability and the need to move toward smaller families and less consumption.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s something that Rinku Sen, president and executive director of the Applied Research Center, agreed that it may be difficult to have a legitimate conversation about population growth without buy-in from communities of color. “My general position is that any reproductive policy has to have education, equity and autonomy. It has to be grounded in those things,” she told Raw Story.

“As both a moral and a practical matter, as the poorer countries of the world begin to advance technologically and use energy in different ways,” Sen continued, “the notion that they would now be restricted in ways that the weather counties of the world have not been is a nonstarter. That’s not going to fly.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen noted that if you take Ehrlich’s two-child plan seriously, it could be problematic. “I think people of color and communities of color are going to be very cynical about how that gets enforced, and whether that gets enforced evenly,” she said. “And are whether wealthier people are going to be allowed exceptions, for example, to buy child credits off of somebody else?”

[Crowd via Shutterstock]

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Mississippi Republican who lost to Democrat by 14 votes files request for state House to void the election and declare her the winner

Published

on

On Thursday, Mississippi Today reported that state Rep. Ashley Henley, who lost her bid for re-election to Democrat Hester Jackson-McCray by just 14 votes in November, has filed a request for the GOP-controlled state legislature to overturn the results of the election and seat Henley for another term.

Henley cites what she claims are several irregularities in voter signature collection, and "missing" ballots. "There were irregularities that happened, absolutely, documented, very much so that bring into question the legitimacy of the election results," said Henley said. "That is without question."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s campaign manager mocked for proudly sharing poll that suggests Dems will keep the House in 2020

Published

on

On Thursday, President Donald Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale posted a poll that was meant to warn Democrats off of their impeachment efforts, by showing how it was hurting their prospects in a competitive House race.

Specifically, the "confidential" poll showed freshman Rep. Kendra Horn (R-OK) down seven points against a generic Republican, and impeachment opposed 52 percent to 45 percent:

Nancy Pelosi is marching members of her caucus off the plank and into the abyss.

Impeachment is killing her freshman members and polling proves it.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Two House Democrats push a clever plan that calls Republicans’ bluff on their Biden attacks

Published

on

Democratic Reps. Katie Porter of California and Max Rose of New York introduced a clever plan this week that will expose whether Republicans’ criticisms of former Vice President Joe Biden in the Ukraine scandal reflect good faith — or if, as many assume, they are just a shameful distraction and a bluff.

The lawmakers announced a bill on Wednesday called the Transparency in Executive Branch Officials’ Finances Act. It has two key components:

First, it would require all politically appointed executive branch officials, as well as the president and the vice president, to “disclose any positions they or any members of their extended families hold with foreign-owned businesses, any intellectual property they own that is protected or enforced by a foreign country, and whether any members of their families have stakes in companies that engage in significant foreign business dealings.”Second, it will “require the President and Vice President to disclose their tax returns for the previous five taxable years and prohibit political appointees from accepting payments from foreign entities.”

What’s clever about the proposal is that it latches on to two important issues, creating a wedge for Republicans. As part of the GOP’s defense of President Donald Trump in the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have argued that the president’s patently corrupt efforts to get a foreign country to investigate Biden, a political rival, were legitimate because the former vice president’s son created a conflict of interest by taking part in business in Ukraine.

Continue Reading