I have been wondering how to get started.  This theme will require many
here to shift gears intellectually.  But I should at least try.  When
time permits, take a look at the July 2006 issue of the "solidarity &
sustainability" newsletter, section 6, figure 1.

Current Issue (July 2006)
http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisustv02n07.html

What do you think?

You may wish to take a look at other similar trend charts in the
newsletters.  The home page has a list of links to each one of the
newsletters posted (May 2005 to July 2006).  It is noted that some of
the factors involved do not conform to the laws of Physics, so the data
is "soft."  But not including them is equivalent to assuming that they
are not significant -- the worst possible assumption.

Solidarity & Sustainability Home Page
http://pelican-consulting.com/solisust.html

Those who are not interested in religion, please keep in mind that the
enormous influence of religious institutions on society is a well
established but poorly understood fact.  These institutions influence
people in ways that affect you and every human being on the planet.

I would be grateful for any feedback, comments, suggestions ...

Take care,

Luis

Religion does have a critical influence on reproductive decision making,
but only minimally via the adoption or rejection of birth control
technology.  To my knowledge, the Roman Catholic Church is the only
religious institution that has zero tolerance for abortion and keeps
insisting on a limited use of birth control techniques.  There are 1.1
billion Roman Catholics, but a very small percentage of "practicing
Catholics" actually practice what the church teaches on this matter.

I think that the strongest influence of religion on population growth is
via the perpetuation of the patriarchal mindset, which is based to a
significant extent on the "male God" image.  There is empirical evidence
that this is the case.  For instance, if you compare the population
growth trends in the first and third worlds, it seems clear that the
first world birth rates are declining (perhaps too much?) while the
third world birth rates continue to increase.

This is a complex issue with many factors being influential.  We know
that "the bed is the consolation of the poor," etc., etc.  But the most
influential factor is (I think) that both men and women in the first
world are better educated in the use of birth control techniquess; both
men and women participate (at least to some extent) in reproductive
decision making; and a significantly higher percentage of both men and
women are able to make such decisions with some degree of freedom from
the rules imposed by the patriarchal mindset.

In the third world, the situation is reversed: most men and women are
poorly educated in the use of birth control techniques; few women
participate in reproductive decision making as they must be ready to
have sex (marital or extra-marital, protected or unprotected) when the
male is ready for sex; and the patriarchal mindset encourages large
families, with many men indulging in extramarital sex and most women
still being under heavy moral and/or cultural pressure against using
birth control techniques, even if they could pay for it.

Needless to say, the population growth issue should be considered in
context with other global issues, e.g., 80% or more of energy and other
resources are consumed by 20% or less of people currently alive.
Personally, I believe that the highest priorities are to reduce the
extravagant consumption rates in the first world, reduce corruption in
the third world, and revise trade agreements which perpetuate "resources
going from the poor to the rich, and pollution going from the rich to
the poor" (Vandana Shiva).

I also propose that those religious institutions that perpetuate the
patriarchal mindset be heavily taxed and deprived of any public funding.
  Specifically, in my opinion, institutions that keep using theological
rationalizations to exclude women from roles of religious authority
(e.g., the Roman Catholic Church and most branches of Islam) are thereby
encouraging many subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) forms of gender
violence, from which stem all other forms of violence; thereby inducing
  great harm to humanity -- both men and women -- and the human habitat.

These are my thoughts at the moment.  I hope that this is the beginning
of including the religious factor in this forum.

Sincerely,
Luis

PS -- Below are some links that may be of interest.

For some data on the global distribution of population growth:

http://members.cox.net/slsturgi3/population_growth.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Growthbydeve...
http://www.unep.org/GEO/geo1/fig/fig4_3.gif
http://mindprod.com/images/worldpopulationgrowth.png
http://www.geog.uni-heidelberg.de/~ttavk/weltkarten/population/popula...
http://images.wri.org/chart_wr9899_image002.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_growth_rate_world.PNG

For more information and data on population issues, I recommend the
following sources:

I would think there are more practical lessons to be learned by a
careful review of factors known to influence reproductive
decision-making and family planning.  If you have access to a research
library, I would recommend starting with this recent literature review
(and the rich bibliography therein):

When Does Religion Influence Fertility? Kevin McQuillan _Population and
Development Review_ [30, no. 1 (Mar 04): 25-56]

"The article concludes that religion plays an influential role when
three conditions are satisfied: first, the religion articulates
behavioral norms with a bearing on fertility behavior; second, the
religion holds the means to communicate these values and promote
compliance; and, third, religion forms a central component of the
social identity of its followers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_growth_rate_world.PNG

http://www.unep.org/GEO/geo1/fig/fig4_3.gif

http://mindprod.com/images/worldpopulationgrowth.png

http://www.geog.uni-heidelberg.de/~ttavk/weltkarten/population/popula...

For more detailed date, see the following:

Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD
http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encycl...

Data is provided to support the following conclusions:

    "1. There are more new Christians added to the world population than
any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire
discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that
Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical
basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize
for being the fastest growing religion.
    "2. On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing
religion.
    "3. That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure
myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical
facts."

May I reiterate what I wrote in my last post:

In the third world, the situation is reversed: most men and women are
poorly educated in the use of birth control techniques; few women
participate in reproductive decision making as they must be ready to
have sex (marital or extra-marital, protected or unprotected) when the
male is ready for sex; and the patriarchal mindset encourages large
families, with many men indulging in extramarital sex and most women
still being under heavy moral and/or cultural pressure against using
birth control techniques, even if they could pay for it.

Needless to say, the population growth issue should be considered in
context with other global issues, e.g., 80% or more of energy and other
resources are consumed by 20% or less of people currently alive.
Personally, I believe that the highest priorities are to reduce the
extravagant consumption rates in the first world, reduce corruption in
the third world, and revise trade agreements which perpetuate "resources
going from the poor to the rich, and pollution going from the rich to
the poor" (Vandana Shiva).

I also propose that those religious institutions that perpetuate the
patriarchal mindset be heavily taxed and deprived of any public funding.
  Specifically, in my opinion, institutions that keep using theological
rationalizations to exclude women from roles of religious authority
(e.g., the Roman Catholic Church and most branches of Islam) are thereby
encouraging many subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) forms of gender
violence, from which stem all other forms of violence; thereby inducing
  great harm to humanity -- both men and women -- and the human habitat.

1. More education, both religious and secular, to enable people to make
morally responsible reproductive decisions; and less indoctrination to
perpetuate mindsets incompatible with freedom of conscience.

2. Heavy taxation of religious institutions that exclude women from
roles of religious authority and fail to dennounce religious violence
and, in particular, gender violence.

3. Withdrawal of subsidies to religious institutions that exclude women
from roles of religious authority and fail to dennounce religious
violence and, in particular, gender violence.

McQuillan 1: "first, the religion articulates behavioral norms with a
bearing on fertility behavior"

Agree, but actual fertility behavior is increasingly driven by informed
decisions of conscience (as opposed to what the priest or minister or
imam says) when people are educated; especially when education includes
both religious education and education on birth control options.

McQuillan 2: "second, the religion holds the means to communicate these
values and promote compliance"

Agree, but communication and promotion are not sufficient because it is
not possible to enforce compliance.  How many Roman Catholics do you
know who practice the guidance of "Humanae Vitae"?

McQuillan 3: "third, religion forms a central component of the social
identity of its followers."

Agree, but something is wrong when religion induces and/or sanctions
social behavior incompatible with human solidarity and ecological
sustainability; such as, for example, religious violence and extravagant
consumption of goods and services.

Luis

You note that the annual addition to christian population (2.5 M per
year) is greater than the annual addition to muslim population (2.3 M
per year).  Assuming the difference exceeds measurement error, how does
this relate to your argument that birth rates are influenced by
"patriarchal mind set"?  We know from your data citation that the rate
of natural increase is higher for muslims than christians, but is that
because "patriarchal mind set" is more prevalent among muslims than
christians?  Do you have any independent evidence to test this
hyposthesis (how do you measure "patriarchal mind set" and does it vary
by religion as birth rates vary by religion?)

"To view the full table of contents of the latest issue, order a
subscription, or  purchase individual articles, please go to Blackwell
Publishing/PDR."
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/padr?cookieSet=1

A. Bahai
B. Evangelical Christianity
C. Hindi
D. Islam
E. Roman Catholic

I was prompted by Jame's Annan's comment that "religion is obviously
relevant" to global change.  After briefly wondering if it were so, I
recognized one potential pathway: the impact of religion on
reproductive decision-making, since population growth is widely
regarded as an important driver of global change, and birth rates are
known to vary by religion.  For example, in Canada, 2001:

Muslim 2.41 children per woman in 2001
Hindus 2.0,
Buddhists, 1.34
Orthodox Christians 1.35
no religion 1.41
Protestants and Roman Catholics 1.57.

Violence may influence death rates too, but it is not a major influence
- and religious violence even less than violence from all causes.
Population is certainly not the only factor in global change: the
effect of population on environment is mediated by organization and
technology.  Religion's influence on the adoption and diffusion of
technical innovation may be an important factor in global change, for
example, as regards birth control technology or uranium enrichment
technology.

Since you are interested in discussing religious violence as an
overlooked factor in global change, perhaps you could suggest some ways
that may be observed, and what your observations are?

In my original post I listed some examples of aggregate population
trends that are informative.  When you start disaggregating these data,
you quickly get to the point in which the "noise" in the data obscures
the "signal," so much so that you end up splitting hairs on numbers that
have minimum relevance to human and social realities.

If a concept is critical to enhance understanding about how things work
in the real world, then it should be included in the analysis even if
there is no commonly accepted scale of measurement and, therefore, no
hard data.  If you exclude those critical factors from consideration,
then you are ignoring the things that really matter.

Let's start with dictionary definitions of patriarchy.  Patriarchy:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/patriarchy

Mindset (or mind-set):

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=mind-set

The patriarchal mindset is self-evident in both secular and religious
institutions.  Both secular and religious patriarchies influence
reproductive decision-making.  I am focusing on religious patriarchies
because they are the root cause of all other forms of patriarchy -- in
the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is documented in Genesis 3:16.
Please note, I am not saying that religious patriarchy, or even
patriarchy in general, is the root cause of all global issues; but it
seems to be decisive in a good number of them, therefore it should be
investigated.

BTW, two possible translations of Genesis 3:16 are currently being
investigated by biblical scholars.  The familiar one is:

Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and
suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be
your master."

But this one has a new twist:

Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and
suffering. And though you may desire to control your husband, he will be
your master."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203:16;&version=5...

In other words, the "patriarchal mindset" is a mentality of *domination
and control*, no matter who is unilaterally dominating whom.  Clearly,
matriarchy would be as bad as patriarchy.  The Christian position is
best summarized by St. Paul: "submit to one another." (Ephesias 5:21).
But even St. Paul succumbs to the patriarchal mindset elsewhere in his
letters, until Pope John Paul II provided a comprehensive exegesis in
his monumental work, "The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine
Plan," Pauline Press, 1997.  There are some good online resources about
this work.  Wikipedia has a pretty good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body

and there are several "theology of the body" websites, for example:

http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

Back to the concept of "patriarchal mindset."  Even though this is not a
concept amenable to numerical measurement, it is not difficult to
recognize in real life, and it is not that difficult to perceive that
there are varying degrees of institutionalized patriarchy in the various
religious traditions.  Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation
between the dominance of religious patriarchy is social life and birth
rates.

Such dominance usually goes together with low educational levels (both
religious and secular) and other forms of underdevelopment, and these
factors may interact in many complex ways.  My working hypothesis is
that religious violence (based on a rigid patriarchal mindset) is the
most fundamental of these factors.  I have started collecting some
evidence (objective evidence, but not necessarily numerical) that seems
to support the hypothesis.  See, for example, the following ranking
derived from the UN Common Database:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=138#row

It seems to me that the countries with the highest fertility rates are
those in which very rigid religious patriarchies are dominant, and the
countries with the lowest fertility rates are those where the social
dominance of religious patriarchies has been mitigated by other factors.
This is UN data, and presumably credible, but most probably is not the
outcome of scientific statistical sampling.  And yet, in my opinion, the
big picture is clear.   This of course is work in progress, but I am not
alone in thinking that the religious violence hypothesis is worth exploring.

For some additional research by others, see the following:

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa125.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_17_42/ai_n16107694
http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~apert/pat.html
https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0410c&L=ecolog-l&P=2294
http://eve.enviroweb.org/what_is/main.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4471988.stm

1. Historically, many violent conflicts and wars have been (to a
significant extent) religiously motivated.

2. The 9/11 attack was (to a significant extent) religiously motivated.

3. The current violence in the Middle East is (to a significant extent)
religiously motivated.

For additional data and analyses, you may want to visit the following
online resources:

The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/index.html

A Guide to Global Population Projections
http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol4/8/4-8.pdf

Population Growth and Fertility Rates
http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/HNPAtlas/growth.gif
http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/HNPAtlas/fertility.gif

Blood and Religion: The unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State
http://www.jkcook.net/Blood-and-Religion.htm#Top

Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/

Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion
http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_VAWReli...

Colloquium on Violence and Religion
http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/index.html

The last one listed above is one of my favorites, and offers insightful
analyses of the link between violence and religion.

Hope we can continue the conversation on this important topic.  Hope
others will participate.

       Region fertility pct_non pct_chr pct_mus
      Africa    5.2          1%        46%       40%
      Asia       2.7        17%         8%       23%
      Lat.Am   2.5          3%        93%        0%
      N.Am     2.4          9%        84%        1%
      Europe   1.4        15%        77%        4%
      Oceania 2.4        11%        83%        1%

Source: religious prevalence from Table No. 1348. Religious Population of
the World: 1998, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1999; total fertility rate per woman 1998, Table 028, U.S. Census
Bureau International Data Base

The regression line that describes total fertility as a function of
religious prevalence is:

Total Fertility = 3.6 - 11.6 (percent non-religious) - 0.5 (percent
christian) + 4.7 (percent muslim)

The point is that on this great globe of ours, birth rates *do* vary by
religion.  Birth rates are lower in regions with a high prevalence of
non-religious people, and higher is regions with a high prevalence of
muslims.

 I thought you had a pretty good idea of *why* they vary by religion:
variation in religion's proclivity to propagate belief in, and conformity
with the doctrine of patriarchy (insofar as a patriarchal mindset inhibits
couples' decision-making power over their own reproductive behavior).   Now
it remains only to show that patriarchal doctrine is indeed the factor that
explains why religious people in general, and muslims in particular, have
higher fertility rates.

Annex Table 2 Deaths by cause, sex and mortality stratum in WHO Regions,
estimates for 2001

Global total estimated deaths:   56,554,000  100%
Due to communicable disease:  18,374,000  32.5%
Due to cardiovascular disease: 16,585,000  29.3%
Due to unintentional injuries:      3,508,000    6.2%
Due to violence and war:               730,000    1.3%

It is not clear what portion of the 1.3% due to violence and war is due to
religious violence and war, perhaps all of it?