Zero Population
Growthof Greater Boston
Zero Population
Growth
| Volume 8, Number 1 | January/February 1998 |
When I signed up to be ZPG liaison to my congressman, I wasn't sure what to expect. So far, I know I have written him less often than I'd prefer and less often than requested by ZPG National.
The good news in my case is that my congressman, John Tierney, is solidly on our side; whether that justifies sloth or complacency is another matter.
When John Tierney paid a visit to his district in October, I knew I had my chance, since I'm better doing things in-person than I am about writing. When I got to the site (outside of Market Basket in Newburyport), there was almost no line. It was good to talk to an aide first, and get addresses, etc.
The basic question I asked Mr. Tierney was why Congress seems so intent on cutting international funding for family planning, since it is proven that less access to family planning results in an increase in abortions, a result against the desires of the conservatives who rail against abortions. His response was essentially that the issue has nothing to do with outcomes and everything to do with politics. What matters is that the conservative congressmen (and they usually are men) need to take certain positions to appease their constituencies and go along with the ambitions of their leaders. The actual outcomes of these votes/decisions are much less important than the perception that they're on the right side. Therefore, reason is of little value.
I was most impressed with Mr. Tierney and his sincerity. His is a swing district that went Republican in the previous election, and the previous incumbent is generally favorable to ZPG positions also, just not as consistently. I look forward to maintaining contact and following what the House of Representatives does on issues of concern to ZPG with great interest.
by Barbara Clapp
Werner Fornos, President of The Population Institute in Washington, DC, addressed approximately three hundred 9th and 10th graders at the Concord High School. His talk was designed to increase their awareness about startling trends in world population growth, the detrimental effects they have on our planet and its inhabitants, and the urgent need for action in order to change this situation.
This was one of over 4,000 events in 60 countries around the world participating in World Population Awareness Week (October 26 through November 20). Each year The Population Institute sponsors this event, cosponsored by more than 450 organizations worldwide to focus on a particular aspect of the population issue. This year it was “Resource Conservation and Population.”
The U.S. had a population of 120 million in 1950; today that number has soared to 267 million people. It is estimated that our population will reach 400 million by the 2050, a conservative guess. Some consider a half billion people a more realistic projection. There are 3 billion young people in the world today; in 1960 this was the total population of the world! During this school year the human population, currently at 5.9 billion, will cross the 6 billion mark. And today’s numbers will double in the next 40 years.
As a result of such rapid growth, the health of the planet is imperiled. Forests are declining the world over. During the last decade, the world lost 600,000 square miles of prime forest. To give you some perspective, this is 66 times the size of New Hampshire! Land interiors will experience long periods of heat resulting in parched, dry and arid land. Coastal dwellers may see a dramatic rise in sea levels in the next 40 years resulting from a 3 percent rise in temperature. Bankers and insurance companies are feeling uneasy these days! Deserts are increasing; climate change is no longer a bad dream. Parasitic and infectious diseases are becoming more common as a result of global warming. Twenty states in this country have reported dengue fever. We in the U.S. are not immune from what occurs in other corners of the earth. With modern means of transportation, we’ve become a twelve hour world. Our topsoil is eroding, the ozone layer thinning, landfills are leaching -- all of which are causing pollution and disease. 86 countries are unable to feed their own. If you still doubt that the planet is in trouble, the one crisis which everybody will understand is the water crisis; this will make the oil crisis of 1970 minuscule.
The decline of the health on the planet is one of the few social issues facing humanity that we can still do something about. And the solution is all related to raising the status of women, 500,000 of whom say that they don’t want any more children.
However, there is one main obstacle and that is the male attitude towards women!
So how do we go about empowering women around the world to prevent unintended pregnancy? Here’s how:
Kudos to Mike Hanauer! (turn to page 5)
This essay is designed to prompt individual and group thought about our attitudes toward one of the most divisive issues for population activists: immigration. In part one (November newsletter), I established the fact that fertility and immigration are both critical elements in determining what our future population will be. Few would deny that both of these factors must be accounted for in devising any plan to reach a stable population. But such a strategy also requires one more critical element: a population goal. Although common sense dictates that we cannot plan immigration (or fertility) strategies without having in mind a desired population, we as population activists seldom identify what we want that number to be. Thus, before addressing immigration, I will more generally address the question of an optimal population.
An "acceptable" or "optimal" population level will vary greatly with personal preferences and the quality of life an individual would expect. In trying to identify such a level, we must be as objective as possible in evaluating the effects of increasing or decreasing our numbers. If the goal is to identify where we as individuals stand, we must first separate ourselves from the bias of the popular opinion on the subject. We must then overcome other biases such as those of our current situation. It is often our nature to feel resistance to change, and we therefore are likely to be more accepting of the current population than higher or lower levels. This is reflected in goals such as "zero growth" or population "stabilization". The rules of inertia also predict that we are further biased by current trends, which now is characterized by steady growth. Thus, if any change at all is to be accepted, it is more likely to be an increase in population than a decrease. These perceptions promise to make it difficult to push for a lower population. However, we should not let this bias prevent us from advocating for an optimal population below the current level if that is what we determine is needed. At the very least, for purposes of discussion, we must know where we really stand. Because final policy on this issue will be a compromise of views and ideas, leading us away from our ideals, we cannot begin in an already compromised position.
In this essay, I will not suggest any specific goals, only that having such a goal is critical to dialogue about immigration or other population issues. Our position must be based on rational ideas and fact so as not to be outrageous or unsuited to compromise. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that disagreement over the "optimal population" level is likely to be a source of significant disagreement not only between population activists and other interests, but also within our membership.
Another issue to keep in mind in the population- immigration discussion is that of timing. Immigration is a factor which we can alter almost immediately in pursuit of our goal. However, we must be aware that reaching population goals through change in fertility can take several generations to take effect. Thus, if we are at all interested in reaching a stable population in our lifetime, it will virtually require reducing immigration from present levels, even if fertility is also reduced. If we have a target that we are willing to entrust to future generations, our path is more flexible.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of the immigration issue is that even after identifying an optimal population and plugging current trends into models, it is not simply a question of numbers. Instead, immigration is a highly charged, emotional, political issue. Views on immigration will often depend more on family history, racial bias, economic considerations, ethnic identity, or guilt than on a desire to reach a reasonable population. Reasons given for encouraging immigration are as diverse as providing cheap labor to aid business, following historical precedent, feeling an obligation to provide an opportunity for those less fortunate, or fear of discriminating against immigrant groups or alienating their supporters. As with population, in advocating levels of immigration, we will likely be biased by current trends. This is especially true for the politicians who set the level of immigration and who often seek the safety of the status quo. Any change from the current level will require a large preponderance of sentiment one way or the other to convince them to alter current policy.
This situation can lead to irrational policy, as decisions may be made more from fears of change than from a desire to tackle the politically difficult and risky task of identifying and achieving an optimal level. However, we as individuals or activists must identify an appropriate level of immigration, one that allows us to reach our goals and is consistent with informed and rational discourse. Just as with population policy, we will inevitably have to compromise to reach a consensus, but we benefit from starting in a clearly defined position.
It is easy for the political, philosophical, and emotional issues surrounding immigration to result in conflicting attitudes within an individual. This is especially true for population activists who wish to stabilize the population to achieve a greater overall quality of life. For those that favor both the current level of immigration and population stabilization, there is a fundamental inconsistency. In this case, I suggest that we carefully examine our attitude toward both issues for the source of this inconsistency. There are many questions we might ask ourselves: Why should we support immigration? What exactly does immigration represent to us? Whom does immigration help? How much does this obligation conflict with our desires to satisfy self-interest and to leave our progeny a world with a quality of life at least equal to ours? How fair is our policy? Does immigration reflect the United States' willingness to address international problems? How does this affect our desire to achieve an optimal or sustainable population?
Often we will find that our ideas on immigration do not make sense in the context of the more critical issues of sustainable population levels. However some of us may find the opposite, that the immigration issue provides the more important and broader context into which we wish to fit our population goals. No matter where we stand, it is most important that we put our thoughts in a rational framework where we acknowledge the relationships between our goals, our emotions, and the reality of trends in population and immigration.
It is clear that our individual and collective stance on immigration will be a compromise. On one hand, we all have reasons for allowing immigration. I have already mentioned many of these ideas. But even more basic than these, we live in an interconnected world in which it is ridiculous to assume that we could or would want to completely stop people from crossing our borders. The United States' interdependence with the world economically, politically, and culturally prevents such a folly. However, it would be of equal folly to assume that we could allow unlimited immigration into our country. The United States clearly could not handle the mass that would like to come without complete deterioration in the conditions that prompt immigration in the first place. At some level then, we have a responsibility to ourselves and our progeny to protect our current interests and resources. Still, we cannot deny the inequities which prompt net immigration into our country. Thus, we must balance our self-interest with our relationship and responsibility to the rest of the world. Our challenge, again, is to determine a reasonable level of immigration which is overall most consistent with our attitudes.
I often compare our approach toward immigration to how we handle certain charitable endeavors such as combating third world hunger. This comparison is not based on the fact that we support immigration simply as a charitable endeavor (though some may take this view), but in how we choose between treating symptoms and solving problems. Faced with the problem of hunger, we might consider two extreme strategies, each of which draws a parallel to a stance we could take on immigration. On one hand, we could treat the symptom. This would involve devoting all of our resources directly to feeding starving humans, a strategy which would appeal to our sympathetic impulse to directly help those who suffer. The immigration parallel would be to let everyone who is less fortunate or oppressed to emigrate to the U.S. to improve their condition.
At the other extreme, we might point out the folly in feeding people when it does nothing to address the underlying causes. This view recognizes that if we do not solve the problem which leads to the unwanted symptom, neither the problem nor the symptom goes away. In the sense that the overall situation has not been improved, the resources we spent have been wasted. Furthermore, we recognize that we can only give of ourselves for so long until the problem consumes us as well. Clearly this would be the case with excessive immigration. In the case of hunger, we would eliminate the problem by reaching a sustainable population and more equitably allocating resources. We could similarly attempt to alleviate the inequities and conditions which prompt immigration, but unfortunately these root causes are not as easily solved.
Many strategies, such as providing family planning assistance and advocating for human rights, are needed to address these problems. Although we are already pursuing such policies, the immense nature of the worldwide problems we face means that progress will be slow, or may even ultimately fail. Thus, one of the difficulties in addressing the root causes is that they are enormous problems which are difficult to comprehend and easily create a fear of failure. It is also hard for many people to see the benefits of the long-term strategy, as the symptoms which were prevented are invisible. In contrast, symptoms that exist and can be treated are striking. A good example would be the Make A Wish foundation which improves the shortened lives of children with terminal diseases. While some might instead contribute to research to prevent or cure such disease, these cures may never be found. Thus, instead of chancing a contribution that may be fruitless, we find solace in at least providing some direct benefit right now.
It is not always clear what strategy is best. Most population activists see the wisdom in addressing root causes of the problem as the key to long-term success, however, we still might have difficulty in completely ignoring current symptoms. I wouldn't doubt that many ZPG supporters also give to charities that could be construed to be rather shortsighted in that they are not devoted to solving core issues, but simply to treating symptoms and improving human conditions. Many of us are probably as passionate about these causes as we are toward population. While these feelings are quite natural, it is important to recognize when they might interfere with more important long-term goals and philosophies. In approaching the immigration issue, let us try to clarify in our own minds how we really feel toward immigration. With regard to immigration, we should define what are the problems and symptoms involved, what costs and benefits does immigration bring, what is most important to us as individuals, what strategies are available, and what would be the effect of each strategy. In doing this for ourselves, we will be in a better position to present intelligent views in the overall debate and to influence others.
U.S. population grows by 3 million people per year due to both “natural” increase and immigration. This adds another California to our population every decade and will double our population now approaching 270 million, to over one-half billion in the coming century.
Can we ever expect to tidy up our problems related to lost open space, diversity, pollution, crowding, trash, overfishing, lost personal freedoms or higher taxes without stabilizing our population? Most of the scientific community and much of our population think not. Yet your article never mentions increasing population as a factor.
Stabilizing our population would be relatively easy and inexpensive compared with just treating symptoms. What will it take to make us acknowledge this problem and act to save a reasonable quality of life for our children?
Michael G. Hanauer Zero Population Growth Lexington, Mass.
(Published on the editorial page of USA
TODAY, November 7, 1997)
While there is no fee for the training sessions, most attendees will have to make their own travel and lodging arrangements. However, ZPG will be making available a limited number of travel subsidy "scholarships" for members. Boston chapter members are encouraged to attend, especially the media session -- this is an area in which we are interested in becoming more savvy.
Anyone interested in the travel scholarship or more information should contact the government relations staff at National at 1-800-POP-1956. You can also contact Howie Breinan for more information at 617-225-8905.
The Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions supports,
educates and advocates on behalf of Conservation Commissions, municipal
agencies which act as the environmental consciences of their communities.
This event offers an excellent opportunity to spread our ZPG message to
over 1000 potential clients and customers for environmental goods &
services who will be attending from throughout the state.
If you are interested in organizing a table or in just attending yourself, please contact Howie Breinan: breinan@alumni.stanford.edu or (617) 225-8905.
See Yahoo! Maps for a map
and driving
directions to this location.
The main focus of this meeting will be on continuing our discussion of immigration, as well as an update on the contraceptive coverage bill. Again, we will be meeting at the home of Barbara Clapp, 100 Lexington Street in Belmont. From Rt. 95/128: take either Exit 28A, which says Trapelo Road/Belmont, or Exit 28, which says Trapelo Road/Lincoln. Which exit you take depends on whether you are traveling north or south. Go east towards Belmont.
Immediately you will see an intersection with a light. From this point travel straight ahead on Trapelo Road for 3 and 1/2 miles. (Do not turn right onto Lexington Street to Waltham Center) at which point you will pass a park and Andros Diner on your RIGHT. Take next RIGHT passing AA Rental and Mobil gas station. Pass through light and in two blocks see large brick building on LEFT. Park in lower lot in one of the first eight spaces to your right or on the street. Enter lobby from parking lot.
From Route 2, going in either direction, take Exit 59 and go South on Pleasant Street (Rt. 60). After about 2 miles, Pleasant Street merges into Trapelo Road by the Star Market. Take a sharp left (Getty station on left) and then an immediate right onto Lexington Street passing AA Rental and Mobil gas station. Go through light and in two blocks will see a large brick building on LEFT. Park in lower lot in one of the first eight spaces to your right or else park on the street. Enter the lobby from the parking lot.
Buzz Function Room. If you have questions, call Barbara at (617) 484-7986. If you need or can give a ride, call Howie Breinan at (617) 225-8905.
Meeting will begin on time at 7:30 PM.
Please see the meeting schedule for general information and other meeting dates.
Minutes of 11/17/97 ZPG-Greater Boston Bi-Monthly Meeting
The meeting was started at 7:45. Present were: Dan Bloom, Howie Breinan, John and Katharine Bryant, Frances Cameron, Barbara Clapp, Chris Conty, Annie Faulkner, Mike Hanauer, Jeff Herman, Brooke Lindak, Peter Lisbon, Phil Morse, and Mary Van Vleck.
GENERAL OFFICE REPORTS: The Chair, Howie Breinan, started by stressing the importance of the newsletter and urged everyone to read it before the next meeting, in order to be well informed on the issues being discussed. We need to be more active in keeping the issue of overpopulation before our legislators, and he urged us to make calls and pay attention to e-mail. Every phone call counts!! Chris Conty reported that he had met with his congressman, Tierney and discussed his position relative to population and family planning. We need to urge people to meet with their legislators before the next elections. A new Vice Chairman is needed, as Walter Branson is stepping down from this position, due to demands of work and a new child. The main task of the VCh. is to fill out the six-month reports for the national office. (We will miss you, Walter!) Treasurer Dan Bloom reported that there will be a $500-$600 deficit this year.
ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS: People who volunteered at various events reported on their activities: Brooke Lindak organized a ZPG table at the Bedford Day in September; John Bryant spoke about the Mass. Association of Conservation Commissions held at Holy Cross. A ZPG table there next spring was recommended. Barbara Clapp reported that Werner Fornos spoke at the Concord (NH) High School to about 300 students. ZPG was represented at the New England Environmental Conference by a Connecticut group. Brooke Lindak and Mike Hanauer spoke before a Human Ecology class at UMass in Lowell on November 10th. Howie described the 30th anniversary Kickoff Dinner in NYC which he and Mike attended. None of the members in attendance at our meeting noticed any coverage from the NY event in Boston area or national news. Two ZPG Boston members recently had articles printed on overpopulation: Mike Hanauer in USA Today (11/7/97) and Annie Faulkner in the Arlington Advocate(11/1/987).
PROGRAM AND PROJECTS - COORDINATOR REPORTS (re: outreach, publicity, newsletter, legislative action): Some population-related articles or letters have been noted in magazines such as Time; such magazines are good targets for our letters about overpopulation, as the editors are likely to be receptive and publish them. Greg Wilcox is doing a great job on the ZPG website, and we need to refer people to it by advertising our internet address. Barbara Clapp requested suggestions for a new name for the newsletter. Currently 1200 Massachusetts members receive the ZPG Greater Boston newsletter that is sent out once a year by ZPG national, whereas only 120 receive the bimonthly regular mailings. Anyone who contacted ZPG of Greater Boston within the last two years remains on the mailing list.
ORGANIZATIONAL LIAISONS: Howie described the Environmental Roundtable which organizes a continuous series of meetings with state legistalors. They are in the process of gathering briefing packs where each member organization (including ZPG) can give a one-page discription of the group, its interests, and the positions that that organization likes to see taken on relevant issues. We are currently looking for a volunteer to help put together such a briefing for ZPG-Greater Boston.. . . Annie Faulkner described the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population (CSP), a forum for environmental organizations to share resources and successful programs about overpopulation. After a brief discussion, we voted unanimously to join the coalition and pay the $25 for membership.
NEW BUSINESS: (Reports on past and ongoing programs, events, issues) Jeff Herman presented information on the Contraceptive Coverage Bill (SB717), currently in the Mass House Ways and Means Committee, that would require all health insurance agencies to cover contraceptive prescriptions. As up to 60 percent of the 60,000 pregnancies in the state are unplanned, this might eliminate up to 50 percent of the state's current birth rate. We need to contact our legislators and Gov. Celluci urging them to support this bill, when we are asked to do so, probably in January. Stay tuned. There is a also a national version of this bill being prepared.
Mike Hanauer proposed that ZPG Boston, as a grassroots organization, be a cosigner of the US Sustainable Population Policy Project, or USS3P. Annie Faulkner described the project as a group of about eight people who will develop and implement a population policy for the US through meeting with scholars, governments, NGOs, books, the media, and all types of organizations and people. This project will foster discussion and begin the process of dealing with the problem more openly. A second commission, the National Optimum Population Commission (NOPC) will also debate the question: What is the US optimum population? over the next 3-5 years. After a discussion of both, we voted unanimously, with one abstention, to sign the proposal of the NOPC, and then unanimously to cosponsor the USS3P project.
Re Immigration: The subject of immigration was brought up for general discussion. Mike Hanauer strongly favors ZPG supporting a change in the US immigration policy, which is the minority opinion on the current ZPG board. He reported that the national organization, while recognizing the need to slow the current rate of immigration, refuses to address the issue directly, that Board members fear such action may alienate people. There was concern in our group that national is not openly discussing immigration as a major component of current and future population growth in the US. Annie Faulkner mentioned that ZPG supports policies that help stabilize the economies of third world countries. Other comments: our fertility is slightly below replacement level, so some immigration is acceptable. We may be more effective trying to reduce fertility which will help globally, rather than taking on immigration. We agreed to continue the discussion at the meeting in January.
Jeff Herman was on TV this week in a Spanish speaking program for the Immigrant Information Resource Center. He described the economic problems of Latin and South American countries as largely due to US policies on trade; for example the sale of US-made jets to Bolivia impoverished the people in Bolivia, so they come where the jobs are (the US, of course). He pointed out a major loophole in the immigration situation: immigrants enter the US relatively easily by going through Puerto Rico, as anyone can become a citizen of PR and Puerto Ricans quickly become US citizens upon application. Forty percent of some economies go to pay interest to loans.
The ZPG Activist Handbook, which is an excellent resource for ZPG volunteers, is now in the care of Phil Morse.
After we agreed to meet in the same location on January 19, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Van Vleck
