Let’s talk about sex – and the babies it makes - and climate change.
With over 6.6 billion human beings in the world, our species has reached into every nook and cranny of our planet. Human population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050. With 78 million new human beings being born each year, population growth has a direct impact on the environment. The premise of Robert Engelman’s book More: Population, Nature and What Women Want is that when women have better access to birth control, including condoms, they can decide when to have children and how many to have. Currently, 41% of pregnancies globally are unintended. What would happen if women have access to good health services so they can make their own decisions about reproduction?
According to Population Connection, our world population has grown more since 1950 than it has in the previous four million years.
As a result of population growth:
- Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 400%
- 80% of the original rain forests have been cleared or degraded
- 27,000 species of animal or plant life each year become extinct, one every 20 minutes
- One-third to one-half of the Earth’s land surface has been developed or commercialized
- 505 million people live in countries with scarce water conditions. By 2025, almost 48% of the Earth’s population will be living in areas of water scarcity.
So why isn’t anybody talking about birth control as a way to “save the planet”? We can change all our lightbulbs, buy organic cotton, and drive hybrid cars but if we don’t have enough food to eat or clean water to drink, it simply won’t matter.
What Can You do?
Since 2002, the Bush Administration has refused to provide congressionally approved aid to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). According to their website, “UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programmes to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” Last year there were 181 nations who financially supported UNFPA, among them were Haiti, Afghanistan, Iran and all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The United States stands virtually alone in not supporting UNFPA. Contact your senators and urge them to co-sponsor and support the United Nations Population Fund Restoration Act of 2008 (S. 2682). Educate yourself on current legislation related to family planning and birth control.
Because let’s face it, you and I both know abstinence doesn’t work.
Resources:
- GovTrack.US
- Morethebook.org
- NPR Talk of the Nation -Interview with Robert Engelman
- Population Connection
Enjoy this post? Get more like it. 
Subscribe in a reader or by Email.
Welcome to Verda Vivo. My name is Daryl Warner Laux.
You are absolutely right on that…. This reminds me from a book I read : Plan B 2.0. My review here :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/02/03/review-of-plan-b-20-by-lester-r-brown/
Meanwhile, underfed people population is on the rise. I am seriously scared that any further population increase might have serious problems to feed themselves. Indeed :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/07/08/50-million-more-hungry-people-in-2007/
Keep up the good work Daryl, your blog is always very interesting.
Thanks for the links to your articles, they are both a good read! Unfortunately, we probably won’t address the overpopulation problem (as in provide funds for adequate healthcare and birth control) until we, in the developed countries, face severe food and water shortages. ~ Daryl
Hi,
An additional things that helps is using Rainforest condoms as mentioned in this blog
Eddy
Eddy, Thanks for the comment and the link to your article. This is good news about Brazil using its own resources to make condoms. Sounds like a win-win to me. And I agree, hope that the factory will be environmentally friendly as well.
I contacted reCaptcha since I cannot pass the word or the number challenge to leave a comment on your blog. ~ Daryl
Daryl, I think we in the so called developed countries can help poor nations to tackle their problems before we find ourselves in a really bad situation ( an even worse that the one we have right now, that is )
I hope the change of administration in the US very soon will change the mindset of your country on sustainable development related issues ( climate change, overpopulation, environment… )
Meanwhile, keep up the good work !
Thank goodness there’s an election coming up. I’m hopeful that a new administration will see things differently. ~ Daryl
Daryl,
What’s wrong with the reCaptcha? It works fine; just tested it.
If you can’t read the the 2 words, you can ask another challenge by clicking on the refresh/reload button just above the speaker button the reCaptcha.
Eddy
Eddy, I can’t tell you why but it’s not working for me. I’ve tried a number of different times, tried refreshing the words, tried the audio numbers and still get an error. That’s why I contacted reCaptcha, hoping they might be able to resolve. Just tried again with no luck. ~ Daryl
I would at least like to take issue with the idea there is a connection between population growth and that “Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 400%”.
I think the latter problem is due to overconsumption rather than overpopulation. As you are starting in the 1950s I would like to point out that since that time the average size of US homes has grown as well as the number of electronic devices per home, cars per home, and so on. Greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to what items people (& businesses) choose to use in their lives and how often. I would argue problem here is increasing consumption per person rather than an increasing number of persons.
Condom use does little to prevent 2 car per family households and so on.
uh, Nathaniel, are you aware that population doesn’t stop in America ? that there are regions called Africa, Asia and Latin America ? (And Europe and Oceania, but their population didn’t increase that much) ?
No because these regions saw literal booms of population during the 20th century and this increase of population leads naturally to an increase of carbon dioxide emissions.
Indeed they are not as affluent as Americans, but since they are much more numerous…
To exemplify my point of view here is some data :
Population of Asia in 1950 : 1.4 billion | in 1999 : 2.6 billion | projections for 2050 : 5.2 billion (d’oh !)
Population of Africa in 1950 : 221 million | in 1999 : 767 million | projections for 2050 : 1,700 million
World population in 1950 : 2.5 billion | in 1999 : 6 billion | projections for 2050 : 8.9 billion…
Data from the United Nations, retrieved from Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
We are already struggling feeding 6.5 billion people… so 2.5 billion people more means more starving people and in any case more pollution.
So YES, condoms matter !
Nataniel, According to http://www.populationconnection.org, between 1950 and 2000, the world’s population increased roughly 140%. The United States with just 4% of the world’s population, produces 25% of the global warming but I don’t think it accounts for entire increase of 400%. I think we should be a leader in terms of controlling our own emissions as well as helping nations who want to manage the growth of their population. Starvation is not an acceptable alternative to birth control. ~ Daryl
Edouard, Thank you kindly for the stats. I do not understand why birth control is such an issue for some. Are abject poverty and starvation acceptable because we choose to look away? I don’t think so. ~ Daryl
Well, as I linked here last week, there have been an increase of 50 million people that are underfed in 2007.
This is H U G E ! It is a sixth of the US population and almost the total population of France. So, if more people are being born, since we can’t much increase a lot the amount of food, more will starve.
My comment could then shift to religious issues, on my beliefs and so on. I won’t do so, but in any case, condoms save lives.
Oh, last but not least : what if some of the million of underfed invaded the United States or France ? I wouldn’t like it…. to say the least.
(and you’re welcome Daryl, it is always a pleasure to discuss with you and on your blog)
Food riots have already happened. I think about the possibilities of civil war on a bigger scale, yes, like it might affect us and then wouldn’t we be surprised! If we can fight over oil, we can certainly fight over food. ~ Daryl
Food riots indeed happened in many places in the world. I posted an article on that :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/04/28/soaring-cereal-bills-and-the-riots-of-hunger/
In the not so distant future and if nothing was done we will have to fight for food, water, energy, air…
Like a friend of mine, I am scared of the Planet I will let to my children and grand children.
But I think changes are occurring. The Pickens Plan is one of them :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/07/16/t-boone-pickens-energy-plan/
Edouard, Excellent article, thanks for the link.
I just added a video of Mr. Pickens talking about his energy plan. He sounds like he is willing to put his money where his mouth is. I am encouraged. ~ Daryl
Me too. (and it’s good, because situation is worsening worldwide)
Now my dream is that Gore’s and Pickens’ plans might merge. I am not alone thinking about that :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/07/18/could-both-sides-and-plans-work-hands-in-hands/
And many thanks for appreciating my articles Daryl, that pushes me to write more !
Actually abstinence does work, just not abstinence programs. Unfortunately, many women don’t have the choice to abstain.
I’ll also say that every study seems to show that, more important than specific birth control programs, are programs that educate women. Education empowers women to make their own choices about their bodies and enables them to better influence their sons and husbands and other men in their lives in a positive way.
This is a much simpler and politically achievable goal.
Excellent post. Many developing nations have recognized the importance of birth control. The US, however, has taken a backwards stance during recent Republican administrations, and cut funding for UNFPA and other organizations that fund family planning programs. The main reason is anti-abortion hysteria and interference by representatives of the Catholic church who still regard birth control as a sin. Hopefully a new president next January will adopt more sensible policies.
Henry, I agree, education for women empowers women as nothing else can.
Ted, The Bush Administration has taken a backwards stance in many areas. I do hope that a new administration will address family planning policies that are reasonable and help women rather than drive them to desperate actions.
Ok, so you agree with Malthusian agenda then? Malthusian theories on “overpopulation” have been discredited on numerous occasions. As soon as you give poorer nations better education, the population levels decrease. Here is a paper with lots of supporting evidence that debunks Malthus. http://tinyurl.com/5qy4oc (PDF)
For anybody else who wishes to complain about “overpopulation” (and it’s usually those pesky brown people that are breeding too fast isn’t it), if they are so concerned then they should offer to do the decent thing and kill themselves
It’s a shame that real environmental issues are being hijacked by the depopulation crowd. What about the forced sterilizations or a tax on the number of children you can have (as the Optimum Population Trust have suggested) – are you for those too?
Qwerty, I believe that if women are educated and have choices for birth control, they can choose how many children to have and when.
If human rights are about the dignity of all persons, how dignified is the following: According to Planned Parenthood more than 200 million women wish to avoid or delay pregnancy and who do not have access to modern contraception. Every minute of every day, a woman dies from a pregnancy-related cause. More than 33 million people live with HIV/AIDS; 2.5 million people were infected in 2007 alone. Over 1.3 billion people living in abject poverty , on less than $1 a day; the majority are women. 19 million women have unsafe abortions every year, the majority in developing countries. An estimated 68,000 women die each year as a result of complications related to unsafe abortions.
Women and men worldwide deserve access to the preventive family planning services that can help them plan and space their children and make responsible decisions about their lives and their futures. Is there something about providing access to health care and voluntary birth control methods that translates to forced sterilizations and a child tax?
OOOh, a lot of people on this topic. Here a few thoughts and answer :
Abstinence doesn’t work… or after you reached a certain age…. ^^
Birth controls should go up, not down…
Overpopulation is a problem for the countries where it occurs. Remember Rwanda ? that was a good example of it. I suggest you read Collapse to learn out more on that. (my review of this fantastic book)
I don’t partake in any population control stuff, I just want all this misery to end.
And for this misery to end, we need education as it is the sole way of empowering people to have less children in countries where populations soar… (see my comment above on the data)
Edouard, Good book, thanks for the link to your review! The thrust of the post is that if women have access to health care and birth control then they can choose if and when they have children, not about population control. ~ Daryl
You are taking reports from Planned Parenthood seriously? You do know that is a part of the eugenics movement? You do know that, Margaret Sanger (http://tinyurl.com/5n94kd), the founder of American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood) was a mad, racist eugenicist? Have you ever read her book, The Pivot of Civilization (http://tinyurl.com/646mw4)? Here is a sample:
“The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.”
I have no problem with woman or men using birth control – that is their own choice, but please research the history of Planned Parenthood before using data from them. They are racist and pro-eugenics in their origins, and as such, I regard their data and motives as suspect.
As for the tax on Children, that is what several “population” organisations are suggesting. They are using the environmental movement to push their eugenics and Malthusian agenda with scaremongering stories about the world running out of supplies. Malthus has been debunked so many times, it only takes some basic research to see that it is nonsense.
As for AIDS being such a problem, people shouldn’t waste their time and effort contacting any depopulation organisation as you suggest in your article. Bayer KNOWINGLY sold a vaccine that contained the AIDS virus to millions of people. This video clips explains:
http://tinyurl.com/yqamee
If you want to help people, then start by getting the big pharmaceutical companies out of the developing world. This article (http://tinyurl.com/5oxpyj) highlights several such examples of pharmaceutical companies forcing drugs onto the developing world
I’m sure you mean well but there are lots of depopulation groups attempting to hijack the environmental movement. Also, sorry for the length of this reply, but I do appreciate the fact that you don’t censor comments.
qwerty, The same statistics are available on UNFPA’s website – http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/facts.htm.
I’m not sure you are justified in finding Planned Parenthood suspect today based on radical writings of Margaret Sanger, who founded the American Birth Control League in 1921. You haven’t provided current facts/data that substantiate that Planned Parenthood is racist or pro-eugenics. Time listed Margaret Sanger in the Time 100 Most Important People of the Century – http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/sanger.html.
The film clip about Bayer refers to a contaminated vaccine that was given to children. While I agree that big pharma should not be allowed to dump products abroad what they cannot sell in the U.S., it is not relevant to the topic of birth control.
I suggested in my post that people contact their senators to urge them to support the United Nations Population Fund Restoration Act of 2008 (S. 2682). If you are referring to UNFPA as a depopulation organization, I do not understand the reference as it seems wholly inaccurate.
Birth control would be good for the whole world but we need the whole world to agree on that.
It’s a prisoner dilemma type of problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)
No country individually taken has an economic interest to reduce its population. Otherwise the size of its national market is reduced while wages increase (less competition among workers) (also high wages are not what big companies want
)
So unless the whole world agrees on that, no countries will be willing to take the first step.
I agree Daryl, indeed we want birth control to be widespread, not population control.
I mean, it is pointless to explain our views to those that believe the other side ( id est our side ) is good when they believe it is evil.
I won’t get back to this topic Daryl. I stated what I wanted to state and I won’t be able to convince people that are closed ears and eyes on my views.
So I’ll stop wasting my time here explaining stuff to people who don’t give a damn about my examinations and arguments.
See you around.
UNFPA is for population control – they have just changed the terminology. From their own website:
http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/journalist'snotebook.html
“”Population control” is a prime case in point. The term is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force – a negative thing to most. Control can mean governments controlling what should be the decisions and are the rights – of individuals, men trying to control women, industrialized nations trying to weaken the power of developing nations’ increasing numbers, or whites trying to reduce the future numbers of people of color.
To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like “stemming,” “stabilizing” or “slowing” population growth. Similarly, “family planning” is preferred to “birth control” a term that dates back to the time of Margaret Sanger’s crusade for women’s rights to use contraceptives.”
This is what Colin Powell said on the UNFPA in a letter to congress in 2002:
“Regrettably, the People’s Republic of China has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”
I’m sorry, naming Margaret Sanger in the “Time 100 Most Important People of the Century” doesn’t make her any less racist. This is not my opinion – just read her own writings. Your notion that Planned Parenthood is not linked with Sanger is a little naïve considering the international arm of Planned Parenthood is named after her – “Margaret Sanger Center International (MSCI)”.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/files/NYC/Agency_Overview_2008.pdf
The fact that Bayer knowingly sold vaccines contaminated with AIDS to people is very relevant. Who do you think gets the contracts to hand out vaccinations and birth control? It’s the big pharmaceutical companies who have proved time and again that they cannot be trusted.
As I’ve already stated, I don’t have a problem with anybody who wants to use birth control, but I do believe that real environmental issues have been hijacked by the depopulation crowd.
As for the comment above saying“…I’ll stop wasting my time here explaining stuff to people who don’t give a damn about my examinations and arguments”. Well, sorry for expressing a different opinion to you, but I am merely pointing to documented evidence and not attacking you personally. I’m sorry if that is how you perceive it, but I can assure you that this is not the case.
Out of interest, are you for China’s forced one-child policy or a tax on the number of children people can have so can save the environment? It seems pointless to save the Earth, yet kill all the inhabitants on it.
Again, sorry for the long comment. If you have clear data and supporting evidence from reliable sources I will only be too willing to listen. Thanks.
Who would you have hand out condoms instead to those people who want it?
This is exactly I wanted to stop partaking in this discussion :
qwerty (nice name pal, mom and dad were really inspired, did they call your daughter or brother 1234 ?) got his views and won’t change them…
Stop wasting your precious time Daryl on this…
@ Verda Vivo
I don’t know, all I’m saying is that the major pharmaceutical companies have a history of looking out for their profits rather than people. I’m not expecting this to change overnight, but hopefully people can begin to debate and work towards a fairer solution. Examining the patent laws on drugs might be a good place to start.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/855/
@ Edouard
So you want to stop partaking in a discussion because somebody doesn’t agree with your opinion from the outset? I think resorting to attacking a username that I used to express my opinions in the comment section of a blog is slightly pointless as it doesn’t further your argument. If you provide supporting evidence for your argument, I will look at it.
Do you agree with the forced one-child policies of China or taxing people depending on how many children they have? What levels would you like to see the global population reduced to?
No, I am stopping because you got your convictions, I got mine, we exchanged our views… that’s cool but since we are not going anywhere…
I don’t want to see the global population being reduced… Current levels are just fine.
And basically, I wouldn’t mind one bit could if population levels were to go up to 30 or even 50 billion if all these additional populations wouldn’t be forced into poverty, lack of food, water etc… which will lead to more wars and threats of unrest worldwide.
As I said above ( in the very first comments ), nearly a billion people are under fed and with less than a dollar per day ( ie. in extreme and abject poverty )… That’s not a situation that must satisfy them.
if this situation suits you, it’s Kool and the Gang, but for me, that’s not the world I would like to live in.
And seriously, I prefer a one child policy to allow this child to have a chance to have the food it deserves than five children with nothing to eat…
So I won’t change one bit my opinion : a HUGE yes to birth control and allowing women, the best part of Mankind, to have children when they want…
[...] so, naturally, President Stupid has has refused to provide congressionally approved aid to the United Nations Population Fund. This is especially ironic when you look at a list of the nations currently experiencing the [...]
[...] by Daryl Warner Laux of Verda Vivo. Posted with [...]
I am digging through your old articles Daryl.
To the ones who think that abstinence works:
Yes, it works marvelously well, indeed, ask Bristol Palin !
(I had that one in my mind for months… but since the baby is born…)
Funny how people just won’t admit that their children are actually having sex! ~ Daryl