Feminists and Human Rights Advocates Just Don't Get It---Nothing Trumps the Need For Rapid Human Population Decline

The following statement by Suzanne Petroni from Population and Environment DOI 10.1007/s11111-009-0085-1, goes some way to explain why doctrinaire feminism has presented a major blockade to effective measures for population stabilization and reduction in the past two decades. Note the obligatory white guilt rich-man, poor-man argument. How dare we tell poor developing nations to rein in their population when we of the wicked affluent north, are driving climate change with our high consumption? Nothing is said of the damage done to biodiversity by poorer nations, or that they should perhaps accept some responsibility for it. After all, it is all about climate now, isn't it? The collapse of biodiversity services and the loss of non-renewable natural resources hardly merit mention--- even if those brick walls are right around the corner. And God forbid if we should ever resort to "coercive" measures to reduce birth rates---we cannot let mere "environmental stewardship" stand in the way of exercising individual rights. Moreover, any mention of immigration would be just too "controversial". And we can't have controversy, can we? As Petroni remarks:

"Perhaps of greatest concern is the prospect of somehow enabling a return to the coercive policies of the past (and present, as in the case of China), which have been proven unjust and damaging to the rights of many individuals, couples and communities. Articulating a close interrelationship between rates of population growth and greenhouse gas emissions poses the prospect of countries which are under pressure to reduce their emissions to consider a ‘‘simple’’ solution to climate change: reducing their rates of population growth. If done without proper regard for human rights, such policies could turn coercive and prove devastating to individual rights and well-being, all in the name of environmental stewardship.

Perhaps more subtly, making this argument in the United States could encourage individuals in this country to blame—wrongly—population growth in the developing world for the problem of climate change…It would be highly unethical to enable the transference of responsibility to the poorest people in the world for a problem towards which the United States has been the primary contributor. Wealthy nations, including the United States, must resist the temptation to shift such culpability, just as they must resist pressuring poorer countries to remain so in order that those living in rich nations do not suffer.

It cannot be left unstated that raising the issue of population growth in the United States would inevitably provoke the similarly controversial issue of immigration.

The risk of alienating a key base of supporters in the form of feminists and human rights advocates around the world is very real if advocacy arguments are not tendered cautiously."

http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2010/01/thoughts-on-addressing-population-and-climate-change-in-a-just-and-ethical-manner/#more-3469

Here is the clincher. The author asks:

"[D]oes the right of the community to live on a healthy planet trump the right of the individual to decide for him or herself, without external pressure, their own desired level of fertility?" I beg your pardon? In what other area of civic discourse is the right of an individual to threaten the well-being--or the very life--of the collective entertained as a question? Do I have a right to drive my car as fast as I want to? Do I have a right to light up a cigarette in a restaurant? Or catch as many fish as I would like to? There were many activities formerly considered God-given rights not subject to public veto. But something happened. Individuals came to live in close proximity to many other "individuals". And when that happens, rules of conduct are established to limit the rights of each individual so that rights of all other individuals to enjoy a safe and healthy life remain intact. Why procreation is thought to be exempt from this process is baffling. Is there anything that a human being does in life that has more impact on the rights of others than introducing another consumer in their midst? Another competitor for what will be a diminishing amount of available resources? People are made to acquire fishing licences, drivers licences and dog licences, but not a licence to procreate? In a world of 7 billion people, this can only be regarded as bizarre. And to those who write the epitaph to our civilization, it will surely be profoundly puzzling. I need to jump several hoops at City Hall if I want to secure a building permit or have my property rezoned, but my neighbour can aspire to be the next Octamum and not face a single application form.

Feminists and human rights advocates just don't get it. There will be NO human rights or women's rights on a dead planet. We cannot "balance" the priority to preserve the environment with their sacred "individual " rights agenda. Therefore her question, "How can we best balance a duty to future generations with the values of individual freedom and equality among the planet’s current occupants?" is absurd. Nature does not give a flying coital crap about "individual freedom" or "equality". These are the mental constructs of morons in denial. She warns of a "numbers-based" policy that might lead the internationally community away from the priority of "individual rights", for after all, " individual rights and empowerment are what matters most in fostering just and sustainable development." Bullocks. Nature "cares" about one thing. Our total consumption. It is all about numbers. Numbers of people times how much and what they each consume on average. That's it. Whether we reduce total consumption or how we reduce it is a matter of complete indifference to Nature--- she gets the last word. Nature is not fooled by greenwash or social justice rhetoric. Call economic growth "just" or call it "sustainable" if you want, but what will impress Nature the most is a rapid and sharp shrinkage of economic activity---"de-growth" if you like. Do it justly or do it unjustly, but just get it done. There is no "balance" in this issue. I fail to see the ethics of risking the survival of our species---and others---by a dogmatic fixation on so-called ethical consideratons. Sustainability---whatever the hell that means now---is a math problem, not an ethereal debate between moral philosophers. I don't which profession qualifies for the designation as the most useless. Real estate agents or environmental "ethicists". If I ever find myself in a moral dilemma, I will look for a bartender. But thanks to Garrett Hardin and common sense, I have yet to need one.

Tim Murray,
August 04/2010