Gynaecology by dffhrtcv3

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 50

									 Each dot
= 1 million
  people
 James Gasana, Rwanda's Minister of
Agriculture and Environment in 1990-92

“In the report I wrote for the IUCN's Task Force on Environment
and Security, I suggested that four lessons be learned from this
tragic chapter in Africa's history:
“First, rapid population growth is the major
driving force behind the vicious circle of
environmental scarcities and rural poverty. In
Rwanda it induced the use of marginal lands
on steep hillsides, shortening of fallow,
deforestation, and soil degradation-and
resulted in severe shortages of food”.
www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1780
The 9/11 Commission Report

   “By the 1990s, high birth rates and
   declining rates of infant mortality had
   produced a common problem throughout
   the Muslim world: a large, steadily
   increasing population of young men
   without any reasonable expectation of
   suitable or steady employment is a sure
   prescription for social turbulence.”
The Pill is
 Mightier
Than The
  Sword
    Population growth 1950 -2050




Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision (medium scenario),
                                          2003.
CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS ARE HARD TO PREDICT
OR QUANTIFY - but the poor are already suffering most!
1500
Barrels
of
oil/gas
equivalent




             per second
                       Water

                                            + Aquifers emptying




“Per capita demand for water globally is estimated to exceed
the available sources by about 2050”
     - Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to UK Gov 2005
  www.popconnect.org
 www.ecotimecapsule.com
www.optimumpopulation.org
     The IPAT equation
 Environmental “IMPACT” has only 3
 causes which multiply with each other:


          I = PxAxT
• Technology, its “green-ness” per
 person
• Affluence/effluence and consumption,
  again per person
• Population, the number of persons….
So, we want to REDUCE I = Impact?
• T = technology will help but almost all scientists
  in agreement, can’t do it all
• A = affluence/consumption OUGHT, globally, to go
  up: as the only way out of poverty is by ↑affluence
  of the very poor (happening in China now..)
 [Leave alone the problem of persuading the already
  affluent to reduce their per-person consumption!
  Let’s be honest, most of actions by Govts and
  individuals so far are token gestures….]
• P = Population is the only factor left!

  Yet it continues as:
  “the elephant in the room that no-one talks about”
            Two factors
• Population: People feel they can’t
  talk about it – but there is a large
  unmet need for smaller family size –
  i.e. it is amenable to change.

• Consumption: People can talk about
  it – but there is no unmet need for
  reducing consumption. More difficult
  to change. Won’t, sufficiently. ..

  High time population stops being
  seen as a “given” to try to adapt to….
  Mahatma Gandhi said:

“The world has enough for everyone’s need..1
 But not enough for everyone’s greed!”…….. 2
         *****************************
  No 2 remains COMPLETELY true, BUT:
  No 1 may no longer be true, because we probably
  now have too many ‘everyones’ if we want all on
  earth to live (let’s say) a ‘modest British lifestyle’

   Humans currently utilise c 130% of world’s total
   biological capacity and by 2050 IUCN/WWF
   estimates we will need 200%! **

  **Another planet? Or half as many of us?
   Isn’t this THE most ‘Inconvenient Truth’?
Planet finite…unending growth not an option….
   Two sides of the same
           coin



         no. of                per
        persons              person




Greenest energy is the energy you don’t use!
AN ABSENT HUMAN
      HAS

      NO

  FOOTPRINT
    Population/Birth Planning
    has major relevance to all the following:

•   Over-use of fossil fuels – and climate change
•   More to die in each climatic or “Natural” disaster
•   Human rights/violence/genocide/terrorism
•   Mass migrations
•   Disease including HIV
•   Maternal mortality
•   Infant mortality

• Poverty, per head, even with ‘development’
• Shortage of water and of food
• Shortage of other basic resources (& energy)

• Conserving biodiversity/habitats/the Natural World
“Family planning could bring more benefits
  to more people at less cost than any
  other single technology now available to
  the human race”

                         James Grant
             UNICEF Annual Report 1992
Aren’t these as much icons of the environment as her bicycle!
    A DAMAGING MYTH
…that any quantitative concern about
human numbers on a finite planet is
intrinsically:
• coercive - or
• exclusive - of other vital concerns
[especially poverty and Northern over-
consumption]

•   ‘anti-human’
Good guideline: 2 offspring replace the parents
Isn’t it true that, in rural poverty
   (reinforced by culture):
1. “Every mouth has two hands” ?
   (Chairman Mao): to work for the family
   and supply a measure of ‘social
   security
2. High infant mortality needs to be
   compensated for ?

Partly: but for starters no woman wants
   the biological maximum number of
   children!
Plus so MANY conceptions are unplanned
There is a widespread unmet
  need for family planning
        % of Married Women Who Want no More
                   than Two Children

70.0%    65.6% 63.8%
                          59.4%
60.0%
                                    53.2%
50.0%
40.0%
                                            33.9%
30.0%
                                                    22.8%
20.0%
                                                              11.1%
10.0%
 0.0%




                                                               ia
         ia




                                            a
                                    s




                                                    n
                 sh



                         al




                                          ny
                                 ne




                                                     a


                                                             an
      liv




                      ep
               de




                                                  rd
                                        Ke
                               pi
    Bo




                                                           nz
                      N




                                                Jo
             la




                             ilip




                                                         Ta
           ng




                                                                      46
                           Ph
         Ba




              Actual TFRs between 3 and 6
Successful family planning:

• Make as wide a range of fertility regulation
  options available as possible

• Use as wide a range of distribution
  channels (including private as well as
  governmental) as resources permit.

• REMOVE BARRIERS TO WOMEN
         TFR Decline among Nations with
          Well Organized FP Programmes

         7
                                                          6.76
         6                 6.4

         5    5.6                              5.5

         4
   TFR




         3

         2                                                       2.4
                                                     2
                                 1.7
         1          1.1

         0
             S.Korea      Thailand        Sri Lanka      Colombia

                                 1960   2007
                                                                       67
Contraceptives available + accessible; barriers ++ removed,
                  misinformation corrected
Wild species now comprise only 3% of vertebrate flesh on plane

								
To top