I thought I’d post a paper I recently wrote about the link between environmental protection and population control, and how population control practices and policies are bad for women of colour. I wish I had had more space to really delve into things a bit further, but this was only a 6 page assignment.
Population Control & Environmental Protection: Misplaced Coercion
Population control programs in less-developed countries have often been implemented under the guise of environmental protection and to the detriment of indigenous people, as part of a global campaign of environmental racism. I will argue that this practice is unethical and coercive, and that what is really required is for developed countries to reduce their own consumption of global resources.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’sbook, The Population Bomb, set off a maelstrom of debate and panic among scholars and the general public alike. Ehrlich argued that the environment was in distress due to unrestricted population growth, and that if left unchecked, the earth’s resources would be exhausted. In a supporting article, Ehrlich urged developed countries to spend resources on programs aimed at family planning (Ehrlich, 1971: 14). Garrett Hardin argued that the population-environment crisis is a “tragedy of the commons” where some are taking more than their fair share of the earth’s resources by having too many children, and that this will lead to environmental destruction. (Hardin, 1971: 67; Hardin 1974) His solution is conceptually simple: “If we want to keep the rest of our freedoms we must restrict the freedom to breed” (Hardin, 1971: 67). While neither explicitly cite less-developed countries as the source of the over-population problem, the implicit meaning is clear: societies where having many children is the norm (not developed countries) are responsible for environmental destruction, and population control programs must be implemented there.
The idea that population growth, if left unrestricted, would cause environmental devastation for the entire world was quite influential during the 1970s and 80s. Indebtedness by less-developed countries to Western “benefactors” was growing, and structural adjustment policies became the main option for continued aid – and came to include population control policies. In 1986, the World Bank reported “The current objective of population control programs is to curb population growth in developing countries” (World Bank, 1986, in Pillai & Wang, 1995: 12, emphasis added). In Senegal, the World Bank required that the government adopt a population control policy as a condition for receiving SAP loans (Banderage, 1999: 65). Population control programs have relied heavily on contraception funded and provided by Western government-sponsored organizations such as USAID, UNFPA, and the World Bank, and the U.S. government has consistently been the largest donor for population control programs in less-developed countries (Pillai & Wang, 1999: 12, 46; Banderage, 1999: 65).
The “disaster ethic” held by Ehrlich and Hardin focuses on ends rather than means. Ehrlich wrote, “[T]he price of personal freedom in making childbearing decisions may be the destruction of the world” (Ehrlich, in Banderage, 1999: 37). This model associates overpopulation with everything from women’s subordination to environmental destruction, and blames the victims: “the primary targets of programs were women’s bodies” (Silliman, 1995: 256). Population control programs have become equated with primarily female fertility reduction policies (Pillai & Wang, 1999: 46), and have historically been implemented only in less-developed countries, poor communities of colour in developed countries, and populations such as the physically and mentally disabled, where poverty is wide-spread and basic needs are not met due to social inequalities. The preferred methods of population control programs are long-term or permanent methods controlled by family planning authorities and clinic personnel, not by the women themselves (Silliman, 1995: 256). These programs have often been coercive, involving uninformed and non-consensual implementation of sterilization and long-term pregnancy-avoidance products such as Norplant, Depo-Provera, and IUDs, and reproductive technologies considered unsafe, untested, and unapproved or banned in developed countries (Wangari, 2002: 306-307).
Sterilization accounts for 45% of contraception in developing countries, and extraordinarily high sterilization rates exist in some countries: 85.5% in Nepal, 69.7% in India, 66.1% in the Dominican Republic, 49.2% in China, 47.9% in Sri Lanka, 44% in Brazil, 41.3% in Thailand, and 37.7% in Mexico (Banderage, 1999: 68). Furthermore, although vasectomy is a far less complicated procedure, “female sterilization is the most favored method of family planners and the most widely used method of fertility control in the world,” and abuse and coercion is not uncommon (Banderage, 1999: 69). Highly unethical methods such as monetary incentives for sterilization “acceptors” and providers, punitive measures for those refusing sterilization, the requirement of a sterilization certificate for employment, lack of informed consent, and even direct force have been used against women and men in less-developed countries in order to reduce birth rates (Banderage, 1999: 71-80). In some instances, sterilization took place in non-sterile and unsanitary conditions and post-operative care was minimal to non-existent, as in Bangladesh, and India, where “speed doctors” perform some 300-500 female sterilization laparoscopies in mass sterilization camps (Banderage, 1999: 72, 77). In China, whose population policy is to achieve negative population growth, eugenic sterilization of mentally disabled and Tibetan women combines with a coercive set of incentives and disincentives in their infamous one-child policy (Banderage, 1999: 78-79). Non-surgical methods of female contraception, such as oral contraceptives, IUDs, Norplant, and Depo-Provera, have been administered in less-developed countries even when they had been banned or untested in developed countries. Esther Wangari writes, “This is blunt racism against the people of colour. Their bodies and their families become nothing but testing and dumping grounds for the new and banned reproductive technologies of the West” (Wangari, 2002: 308).
Meanwhile, developed countries continue to over-consume, directing their attentions to resources in less-developed countries. Large Western-owned corporations exploit heavy debt burdens experienced by less-developed countries to make resource extraction deals for timber, oil, and mining products in less-developed countries. Less-developed countries desperate to increase exports and repay loans are at the mercy of corporations eager to plunder third-world resources: “In a rush to lay claim to valuable resources, foreign companies destroy the local environment and endanger the cultural and often physical survival of the indigenous people who populate it” (Weissman, 1993: 188).
There is reason to be deeply suspicious of the deployment of reproductive technologies in less-developed countries by Western development organizations, while simultaneously, structural adjustment policies restrict economic development and allow for the depletion of third-world resources by Western corporations (Wangari, 2002: 302). Social and cultural factors are not considered by population control programs; for example, failure to bear children can lead to ostracization and brutality for women, and for poor families in less-developed countries, children are economic assets and not liabilities (Banderage, 1999: 159-160). Each child adds only marginal cost, but the economic return on the labour they provide for their families is far greater. The environmental problems faced by the world are not caused by the poor in less-developed countries; the poor are as much victims as the environment, and are scapegoats for the real culprit: unequal distribution of power, wealth, control of resources, and overconsumption in the global population (Banderage, 1999: 187; Wangari 2002: 306).
Afffluent lifestyles in developed countries pose a serious threat to the global ecosystem. Developed countries are responsible for consuming the majority of the world’s animal meat – and subsequently 40% of the world’s grain used to feed livestock; own the majority of the world’s automobiles –a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming; and account for approximately 75% of the world’s raw materials and energy use (Banderage, 1999: 229-232). Furthermore, “although industrialized nations in the North are responsible overwhelmingly for production of greenhouse gases, the effects are global; some of the worst effects are felt in some of the poorest countries” (Banderage, 1999: 233).
The real population problem does not lie with less-developed countries, but in the population of the developed countries who are consuming resources at an alarming rate. Yet, these populations have not been targeted on the same scale for consumption reduction as less-developed countries have been for population control and fertility reduction, which have been justified in the name of environmental and resource protection. This apparent discrepancy comes from the fact that “the rich contribute to market expansion through their profligate consumption, while the poor, who lack purchasing power, are superfluous to capitalist growth” (Banderage, 1999: 234).
In conclusion, less-developed countries are being blamed for environmental destruction and resource consumption, and are being coercively and unethically targeted with contraceptive measures aimed at population/fertility reduction, the subjects of which are overwhelmingly poor women of colour, while the real culprits are overconsumptive populations in developed countries. The solution to the problem of environmental degradation, then, does not lie with population control policies implemented in less-developed countries. The solution to the problem of global environmental degradation must target the source: unequal distribution of power, wealth, control of resources, and overconsumption in the global population. Esther Wangari writes, “It is Western countries, it appears to me, that need ‘family consumption planning clinics’” (Wangari, 2002: 306, 308). I couldn’t agree more.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Bandarage, Asoka (1997). Women, Population, and Global Crisis: A Political- Economic Analysis. London UK: Zed Books.
- Ehrlich, Paul (1971). “The Population Crisis: Where We Stand” in Population, Environment & People, ed. Noël Hinrichs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 8-16.
- Hardin, Garrett (1971). “Population, Pollution, and Political Systems” in Population, Environment & People, ed. Noël Hinrichs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 59-68.
- Pillai, Vijayan K. and Wang, Guang-zhen (1999). Women’s Reproductive Rights in Developing Countries. Aldershot UK and Brookfield, VE: Ashgate Publishing.
- Silliman, Jael M. (1995). “Ethics, Family Planning, Status of Women, and the Environment” in Population, Consumption, and the Environment: Religious and Secular Responses, ed. Harold Coward. Albany NY: State Unniversity of New York Press. 251-261.
- Wangari, Esther (2002). “Reproductive Technologies: A Third World Feminist Perspective” in Feminist Post-Development Thought: Rethinking Modernity, Postcolonialism and Representation. London UK: Zed Books. 298-312.
- Weissman, Robert (1993). “Corporate Plundering of Third-World Resources” in Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice, ed. Richard Hofrichter. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 186-196.
Thoughts, folks?
Very interesting. I recently thought that passing the 300 million population mark in the United States was not a reason to celebrate but rather to think and maybe worry.
There’s even a rather disturbing tendency in first-world countries to push natality, which seems to be based on a premise like “if our population decreases we’ll be invaded by poor people from the south”, or maybe a fond memory of the time when countries with the most people had the most cannon fodder.
Recently I checked that one of the candidates for presidency here in France has got 6 kids. 8 people *5 = 50 tons of CO2 emitted every year (in the US it would be 120 tons). Can we compute that each kid he would not have had would have had as much impact as 5 African women having one less kid ?
Although its politicians and journalists fret about it, I think Japan sets a very good example of a very energy and resources hungry country drastically altering its birth-rate. The fact that a general disregard for very-well educated women helped bringing it about is a shame.
I’m not sure though that all sterilisation campaigns are forced on poor countries by richer ones, like in China, it seems a ‘local’ political decision, I might be wrong…
The way some countries like the US and Australia link their development help to the absence of family planning and birth control is also another bias which seems to point in a completely different direction.
I don’t dissagree that the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility for global warming lies with the developed world. Also it’s just as true that the population control methods you cited are brutal and totally immoral. However I would like to say that the developing world is still in a population crisis. This can be observed in the ridiculous urban sprawl, notable examples being Brazil and many Asian nations. The responsible course of action in these cases would be to create the circumstances that encourage responsible family planning in the developed world, primarily education and economic development and stability. Again, you make very good points, I just suggest that overpopulation in the developing world is still a major issue. I recommend “Preparing for the 21st century” by Paul Kennedy, it’s a little dated but it’s a very fascinating look at the demographic, cultural and economic trends that are driving changes in the various regions of the world.
first of all, kudos to you both for getting through a somewhat lengthy post, and thanks for reading!
Sophie – thanks. Yes, cause to pause, surpassing the 300 million mark. I noted that all the info I read for this paper placed no responsibility on developed countries to reduce their population, despite the impact that increasing population in the developed world has on the global environment compared to increasing population in the developing world. Each child born to a north american family consumes something like 60 times what a person in the developing world does. Also brought up repeatedly but no room in my paper to address it was the fact that what is causing the population overload is declining death rates rather than increasing birth rates.
I can’t help but think that the natalistic push in the west is linked to gender oppression, wanting to further control and constrict women in the public sphere by increasing pressure to remain in the private sphere of home.
I read recently that France was providing increased incentives to women to have more children due to a declining birth rate.
good point about China, they implemented their one-child policy on their own; however, while it wasn’t in response to pressure from the west, it seems to have stemmed from a desire to be like or even overtake the west. China’s population control policies are very coercive, particularly for poor families and most especially for Tibetans. I read horrific stories in which women would go into labour and wake up in a field having been sterilized, with their baby dead beside them. Now, I’ve been reading that Korean women are being kidnapped in order to become breeders for Chinese men due to the serious lack of Chinese women. The whole thing is just so weird.
Cornucrapia – I don’t think population is necessarily so much the problem for developig countries as a lack of economic opportunity due to a global monopoly on money and resources by the west. As my paper discussed briefly, the west is supporting corporate plundering of natural resources in the developing world, and this leaves a great deal of environmental destruction in its wake that often results in refugeeism and forced relocation. For many families in developing countries, their children are one of their only assets economically – taking away their ability to extend their families results in more economic ruin rather than gain.
Wow, awesome work. It’s always seemed like there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance around the west’s efforts to control population in poor, faraway countries combined with what you describe as the “natalistic push” here. Your paper really helps me make sense of how the idea of overpopulation is leveraged to economic advantage overseas, yet at home we’re somehow being told that we’re going to run out of (white, natch) babies if American women don’t get to breeding right away. It’s especially bizarre to see such coercive methods used while our government simultaneously inhibits sexual education in developing countries (e.g. the Global Gag rule), thereby keeping the means for what we have the luxury of calling ‘family planning’ out of the hands of the actual members of the population that’s being controlled from outside.
I hope that all made sense. Not having ‘preview’ button makes me worry about seeing after I post a longish comment that I have not in fact made any sense 🙂
Thinking girl : “I don’t think population is necessarily so much the problem for developing countries as a lack of economic opportunity due to a global monopoly on money and resources by the west.”
I think overpopulation is a big problem on earth.
We have sustained a global population growth through use of fossil fuels. I’m not sure at all having 6.5 billion people (or the 9 billion forecast by 2100) living on the planet is possible using only renewable energy and our current technology (or the technologies currently developped).
Most of our food production uses fossil fuels, and we are too stupid to feed everyone while we produce enough, what will happen when we don’t have fertilisers?
Imagine a hospital without a 24/7-reliable outside energy source and no fossil fuels for the generators.
Overpopulation and overconsumption lead to ecosystem destruction, decreasing the ability of the ecosystem to support us once we go without fossil fuel.
Climate change is also a big threat, and overpopulation means huge concentrations of people are threatened. Think of the people living along the Gange, how will they live when the Himalaya glaciers melt? Think of the population concentration in low-lying Bangladesh or South East Florida, they are at risk of a less than 1m sea-level rise.
I agree that resources are appropriated by the first world in such a way that the other countries are only left with very little. But the fact that we can’t share when we have too much doesn’t bode well for when we won’t have enough.
Thanks for the well-researched paper, actually I’ve started researching the issue as it is the topic of the Model UN event I’m organising! .
I agree that forced sterilization (anything that’s forced, actually) is reprehensible, and the developed world is more responsible for the climate change. But the biggest issue at the stake in regards to the population issues is women’s right to birth control, I think. Women are deprived of the right to choose abortion (in most developing countries situations are worse than in the US), family planning services are still not widely available, and it affects millions of women too.
ICPD’s Cairo Declaration is a fantastic feminist document, with a strong emphasis on feminist perspective and women’s reproductive rights approach to the population issue… we need more effective approach to implement the Cairo Dec better and the UNFPA need to be strengthened. I completely agree with Sophie, overpopulation is a serious threat to the global environment and people’s well-being, yes overuse of resources in the developed world is problematic but so is overpopulation…
TG, have you read Hardin’s “Lifeboat Theory” paper? (Can’t remember the exact title sorry). Well-if you do, prepare to do the angry dance.
I agree with the general argument of your paper (Hardin doesn’t) and I would like to add that every population documentary I’ve seen has opened with a scene of either a big crowd of Chinese people or a big crowd of Indian people. By showing pictures of people living in urban centres (which if planned correctly are a far more efficient use of land than North America’s wasteful suburbia) there is a strong racialized image intended to provoke fear in the white, suburban viewer. It’s like a zombie movie. The Chineeeeeeese! They’re coming to get youuuu!
The reason those big scary populations of Chinese are all crowded together is because they’re in a city. In cities, that’s what people do. Get over it. The image and its symbolic fear become a more powerful persuasion to the uncritical viewer than a logical argument about land:population or carrying capacity.
Not to minimize the validity of some population-control arguments, but I really do think there is a strong undercurrent of fear in the First World that drives this concern. My pet theory is that that fear is based on our own knowledge of our inequality and the fact that there are so much more of “them” (in the Two-Thirds World) than there are of us.
Oh and by the way Paul Ehrlich-a few centuries ago there was a bit of an overcrowding problem in Europe. They dealt with that rather effectively without reducing their birth rate. Perhaps Asians should just follow the First World model and find themselves a sparsely-inhabited hemisphere (or if it is indeed inhabited there are steps one can take to remedy that), and just start moving over in vast numbers to even out population, wage, and labour productivity. It worked for Europe!
defenestrated – thanks, glad you liked the paper. and yes, what you’re saying makes complete sense to me. Esp. the part about family planning, and western interference in developing countries’ education etc. – heck there’s so much interference from the religious right here in the west in regards to birth control and abortion and sexual health in terms of both education and access to services. Why shouldn’t we expect the interference in the developing world?
Sophie – everything you said is true. but those same arguments have been used by those pushing coercive population control programs in the developing world. It isn’t that overpopulation isn’t a problem – it’s that the emphasis is on overpopulation, and not on overconsumption. It’s that the west wants to protect its fucking sacred consumer capitalist “way of life,” which amounts to beating the developing world over the head and stealing all its resources and then overusing and squandering those resources.
My feeling is that at least as much emphasis should be placed on reducing consumption as reducing population.
LL – sounds like your model UN will be very interesting. I agree – women’s access to informed birth control rather than coerced fertility reduction is a huge issue. There is a lot of work being done around women’s reproductive health by NGOs, you should check out some of that research. Reducing fertility often means economic conditions for women improve, as well as access to education, so it’s not a bad thing to bring birth control to women in poverty-stricken countries – it’s just HOW and with what ATTITUDES it has been done that is a major problem. The goal has never been to empower women.
RG – yes, I did have the misfortune of reading Hardin’s “living on a lifeboat” paper. It made me spitting mad.
good point about urban crowding. It’s not really that much different from NYC, Tokyo, London – cities are overcrowded, but by god they use their space way more efficiently than the freaking suburbs!