It argues there is enough food to feed everyone but that it isn’t shared.

I know its off topic, but I wanted to mention it as you made reference to food.

I just realized I should have edited my earlier post to mention it, sorry.

And thank you Feministe for questioning if coercive population control is actually feminist. I think the idea population control is environmental should be questioned.

It argues there is enough food to feed everyone but that it isn’t shared.

I know its off topic, but I wanted to mention it as you made reference to food.

Sorry for the typo.

If you look at China, which has coercion in it population control efforts, the amount off pollution it released increased the fastest after it started population control programs. Population control only controls the number of people, not the number of devices that generate pollution or the overall amount of pollution generated.

Because stopping population growth misses the real problem it doesn’t protect the environment.

An ironic thing about falling the population growth is that it frequently occurs when people can afford more and are likely to purchase more devices that pollute-leading to the problem of “western” style consumption and pollution.

Getting back to feminism, it argues against forcing women to be mothers, as it does this logic says it should do the same against forcing them not to be.

It’s the political and economic situations (like dictatorships that won’t let aid workers into a country after a cyclone) that prevent the food from getting to people.

On another tangent, I have to disagree with shah8 and Lisa (23) that we should just let it go unchecked until Nature takes care of it for us. That course would allow a lot of needless suffering. Much better to prevent or at least slow the process, so that suffering is at least somewhat limited. We are not mere animals in the natural cycle with no idea of what’s going on; we are blessed with the ability to solve or ameliorate these problems and so are ethically bound to try.

And Freedomgirl, thanks for your post–I’ve never heard it put quite that way before. We also use crops for fuel. In neither case is it that a cow or a car “deserves” the grain more than a person does, but that those of us with money would rather eat a burger or drive a car, and our money elevates that grain out of the grasp of the poorer ones. So yes, driving less and eating less meat (even if not going entirely meatless) would help shift the demand for grain and free it up for others, I would hope.

all that said – i remember when i first read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. part of the background is that the Moon is a forced penal colony that grows wheat that is primarily used to feed the people of India. who, at least in the book, are so beyond poverty that families will pass down a YARD of PAVEMENT to live on. i don’t know that its THAT bad in India, but everything i have read mentions a sweeping and pervasive underclass who have very little in way of opportunity and have no way to not have lots of children. and then i hear about, say, a policy in a province that limits children, but a high ranking politician is able to exceed the limit.
and the professors who have discussed what THEY feel is the problem – the caste system, which means that policies, if they are created, either punish the lower castes or reward the higher castes, for nothing more than where they fall on the arbitrary scale of “caste”.

in general, i admit to a very UN-femist view on procreation – i feel that EVERYONE should AUTOMATICALLY be on birth control, and have to apply for a counter. and i am well aware of how that will be abused, which is why i don’t advocate for it, and won’t until and unless i (or someone else) comes up with a system that will be fair. i also admit that my reasons have nothing to do with ‘overpopulation” and everthing to do with my childhood – bad genes and abuse don’t make for a happy one.

as for the incentives… i agree that many young women, at least here in the US, think that having a baby will “get” them something – respect and adulthood not least, but i know when my youngest sister got pregnant and i told her she had options she told me should could live on welfare. blame Regan for that – the meme of the “Welfare Queen” is so pervasive that some young women BELIEVE it, and think they can get rich (even though they can’t). other incentives? tax breaks and such, and the fact that almost everyone thinks that THEY are at least middle class. so many people don’t KNOW where they fall, compared to everyone else. people don’t really think babies are expensive, and so many magazines essentially tout them as important “accessories”… its kinda sickening, like the hype over Angeline Jolie’s kids. and “Baby Gap”. argh!!!

Huh? You mean, mothers get paid more than nonmothers? Are more likely to be hired? Are more likely to advance in the workplace? Have more disposable income? Have more respect? Are more likely to be regarded as intelligent? Pray tell, where are these incentives you speak of?