Global Impacts of Religious Violence
Luis Gutierrez
> Luis Gutierrez wrote:
>
>
>>I think the interaction
>>of world religions will be a key factor in the unfolding of global
>>change, but let me ask: is religion "out of bounds" in this group?
>
>
> No, it seems obviously relevant and potentially interesting (speaking
> for myself as one of the moderators).
Hello everyone,
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
--
Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D., P.E.
The Pelican Web
http://pelican-consulting.com
Email: luisgu...@peoplepc.com
dli...@tds.net
> Hello everyone,
>
> 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?
Can you tell us something about how reproductive decision making is
influenced by religion? Most would agree that population growth is a
global change driver, and that the adoption of birth control technology
has a strong influence over birth rates. What is the relative
contribution of religion to the adoption and diffusion of birth control
technology, relative to other socioeconomic factors, prinicpally, cost?
-dl
Luis Gutierrez
> Can you tell us something about how reproductive decision making is
> influenced by religion? Most would agree that population growth is a
> global change driver, and that the adoption of birth control technology
> has a strong influence over birth rates. What is the relative
> contribution of religion to the adoption and diffusion of birth control
> technology, relative to other socioeconomic factors, prinicpally, cost?
This is an excellent question. I assume that by "birth control
technology" you mean the entire spectrum of artificial birth control
techniques, including contraceptives, abortifacients, and abortion
procedures, since they are all now supported by technology.
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/Growthbydevelopedvslessdeveloped.jpg/400px-Growthbydevelopedvslessdeveloped.jpg
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/population-growth.gif.gif
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:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/index.html
dli...@tds.net
> dli...@tds.net wrote:
>
> > Can you tell us something about how reproductive decision making is
> > influenced by religion?
>
> This is an excellent question. I assume that by "birth control
> technology" you mean the entire spectrum of artificial birth control
> techniques, including contraceptives, abortifacients, and abortion
> procedures, since they are all now supported by technology.
>
> 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.
The Roman Catholic Church has a formal policy, and evangelical
protestants have an informal policy evidenced by political decisions
made by representatives of that electoral bloc, not to mention direct
action (sometimes violent) campaigns to harass and oppress practicing
physicians.
>
> 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 why I asked the question: can you plot (or point to a plot) of
birth rates by the prevalence of what you call the "patriarchal mind
set" - I believe you will find the highest birth rates among nations
with a high prevalence of Islam. Not to put words in your mouth, but
if your hypothesis is true, what do you prescribe as a solution:
theological revolution and mass religious conversion?
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."
Luis Gutierrez
> Luis Gutierrez wrote:
>>dli...@tds.net wrote:
>>>Can you tell us something about how reproductive decision making is
>>>influenced by religion?
>
> <...>
>
>>This is an excellent question. I assume that by "birth control
>>technology" you mean the entire spectrum of artificial birth control
>>techniques, including contraceptives, abortifacients, and abortion
>>procedures, since they are all now supported by technology.
>>
>>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.
> The Roman Catholic Church has a formal policy, and evangelical
> protestants have an informal policy evidenced by political decisions
> made by representatives of that electoral bloc, not to mention direct
> action (sometimes violent) campaigns to harass and oppress practicing
> physicians.
Even for roman catholics and evangelical protestants, this has minimal
effect on the number of abortions in the USA, let alone worldwide.
>>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 why I asked the question: can you plot (or point to a plot) of
> birth rates by the prevalence of what you call the "patriarchal mind
> set" - I believe you will find the highest birth rates among nations
> with a high prevalence of Islam. Not to put words in your mouth, but
Please see some of the data I suggested at the end of my plot:
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/population-growth.gif.gif
For more detailed date, see the following:
Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD
http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
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."
> if your hypothesis is true, what do you prescribe as a solution:
> theological revolution and mass religious conversion?
Neither .... theological revolutions are not possible, and mass
religious conversions are improbable ...
May I reiterate what I wrote in my last post:
Perhaps I was a bit long winded. These boil down to:
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.
> 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]
I don't have access to this journal, and would be grateful if you could
send me a copy of the article. However, these conclusions ...
> "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."
.... are very similar to mine.
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.
> http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/pdr/vol30_1.html
I cannot find this in the open access journals ... could you kindly send
me a copy?
Luis
--
Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D., P.E.
The Pelican Web
http://pelican-consulting.com
Solidarity & Sustainability Newsletter
http://pelican-consulting.com/solisust.html
Current Issue (July 2006)
http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisustv02n07.html
Email: luisgu...@peoplepc.com
Coby Beck
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,504486,00.html
Anyone else find this much less than reassuring? I doubt the journalists
have it right anyway. Surely such a project would take eons, not in time
for the end of this century.
Coby
Coby Beck
According to the Woods Hole Institute, it may only take three years of
drought to potentially destroy the Amazon rainforest. I don't know how
reliable such a conclusion is, but this strikes me as hugely serious, and
maybe happening right now.
Coby
James Annan
It strikes me as highly apposite that the above story appeared at the
same time as this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/5236482.stm
==
Apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental
groups and the UK government amount to "climate porn", a think-tank says.
The report from the Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research
(IPPR) says over-use of alarming images is a "counsel of despair".
It says they make people feel helpless and says the use of cataclysmic
imagery is partly commercially motivated.
However, newspapers have defended their coverage of a "crucial issue".
==
Lean and Pearce (the authors of the Amazon article) are responsible for
some of the most extreme stuff in the UK press (ie the Independent).
James
crandles
I read that and thought if we are already on the second year of drought
and the forest cannot withstand more than 2 consecutive years this is
really serious. My next thought was to wonder if the media making it
sound serious. So I went to the Woods Hole Institute website and I
couldn't find any mention of it. Perhaps I didn't search diligently
enough. However this experience does leave me feeling it has probably
been hyped up.
Anyone know where the scientific research rather than media report can
be accessed?
Jim Torson
I consider the Woods Hole Research Center to be a very
credible organization. However, it appears that this article,
which originally appeared in The Independent, is a very
inaccurate description of their Amazon research. I subscribe
to another list that sends out frequent news articles on
climate change issues (and other interesting topics). It
included this article and then
a couple days later sent out the follow up included below.
The article at the WHRC link contains a link to further
information on this research.
Here is the NHNE Climate Change Resource Page:
http://www.nhne.org/tabid/490/Default.aspx
This includes links to things such as Global Warming Art,
Real Climate, A Few Things Ill Considered, IPCC TAR, etc.
Jim
-------------
NHNE News List
Current Members: 1460
Subscribe/unsubscribe/archive info at the bottom of this message.
------------
EDITOR'S COMMENT:
Here's some more information on the story that The Independent recently ran
on the possible demise of the Amazon rainforest:
AMAZON RAINFOREST 'COULD BECOME A DESERT' (7/24/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/11559
An article published by Woods Hole Research Center in March of 2005 is
followed by links to a blog by Scott Burgess that challenges several aspects
of the story, including its excessively dire tone.
Thanks to Garth Godsman for these links.
--- David Sunfellow
------------
WORLD¹S LARGEST RAINFOREST DRYING EXPERIMENT COMPLETES FIRST PHASE
Woods Hole Research Center
March 21, 2005
http://www.whrc.org/pressroom/press_releases/pr-2005-03-21-drydown.htm
Scientists with The Woods Hole Research Center are analyzing the surprising
results of the first phase of a drydown experiment occurring in the
Amazonian rainforest.
From January 2000 to July 2004, rainfall was excluded from a one-hectare
(2.2 acre) plot in the middle of the Tapajós National Forest, in Brazil. A
total of 6 feet of rainfall was diverted with six thousand 2¹ by 6¹ clear
plastic panels suspended 3 to 12 feet above the soil. The panels were
removed during the five-month dry season each year. To sort out the forest
responses to the ³umbrellas² from the normal variation in tree growth, tree
death, leaf production, and other aspects of forest behavior, researchers
compared this dry plot of forest with a similar plot, from which rainfall
was not excluded. These two forest plots were compared for a year prior to
installation of the plastic panels to register any differences in behavior
that already existed when we began the experiment.
According to Daniel C. Nepstad, a senior scientist with The Woods Hole
Research Center, ³This experiment provides researchers with a peek into the
future of this majestic forest, a future that will most likely be drier
because of global warming, El Niño episodes, and even the drying effects of
rainforest clearing and burning itself.²
First, the biggest surprise noted thus far has been the great tolerance that
this forest presented in the face of the severe drought that was created. As
the moisture stored in the soil that sustained the forest during prolonged
dry seasons was depleted in the dry plot, the trees simply absorbed water
from deeper in the soil with their extensive root systems, avoiding most of
the visible symptoms of drought stress. By the end of the five-year period
of exclusion, many trees in the forest were drawing in water from more than
40 feet deep in the soil.
Second, it was anticipated that when the trees ran out of water in the soil,
they would shed their leaves. In fact, this study shows that the reaction to
drought is instead a decrease in the rate at which tree trunks grew in
diameter. Many small trees, measuring 4 to 10 inches in diameter, simply
stopped growing during the end of the dry season of 2000, following the
first period of rainfall exclusion, as the trees of similar size continued
to grow in the ³control² forest plot. The trees slow down the amount of
water that they lose from their leaves by closing their stomates. The trees
adjust to the resulting reduction in photosynthesis by diverting less of the
sugar and other carbohydrates that they make to wood production. This
finding has important implications for climate change since the amount of
carbon removed from the atmosphere during tropical droughts will decrease
significantly. In addition, there are implications for sustainable forest
management, because the time one must wait after harvesting timber from a
forest before a second harvest will increase.
Third, the observed sensitivity of large canopy trees in the forest to
drought is greater than expected. Once the moisture that is stored in deep
soil is depleted, then the large trees that tower 130 to 150 feet above the
ground, basking in full sunlight, begin to falter and die. The death of
large trees trees that may take centuries to reach the top of the forest
canopy and have trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter -- increased from
about one percent per year before the rainfall exclusion began to nine
percent in the fourth year of the experiment, when soil water was depleted.
This sensitivity of large trees to drought means that a decline in rainfall
will likely push this tall, green, lush rainforest towards a shorter, more
stunted forest.
As the forest becomes shorter and its leaf canopy more open, compromising
its remarkable resistance to fire, it is clear that drought in tandem with
fire can swiftly push the tall, dense rainforests of the region towards
savanna scrub. The amount of carbon that could be released to the atmosphere
by this savannization process is significant -- equivalent to several years
of worldwide carbon emissions -- and could accelerate climate change
processes already in place. But beyond these global effects, drought and
fire, which is a tool of choice among the Amazon¹s farmers and ranchers,
pose a serious threat to a forest that is home to more plant and animal
species, and more indigenous cultures, than any other forest in the world.
According to Nepstad, with the completion of this first phase of the
experiment, attention will turn to another future scenario for the world¹s
tropical rainforests. Namely, how does the forest recover, or not, after
prolonged drought? Although it is difficult to imagine a reversal of the
current trend in rainforest drying, it is important to understand the
forest¹s response to this scenario nonetheless. What types of trees will
invade the forest that has now been ³released² from its imposed drought? And
are the trees that survived somehow damaged, and unable to respond to this
release? Have the vessels that conduct water from their roots to their
leaves become clogged with water vapor bubbles, restricting their growth for
years to come? These are just some of the questions that will be explored
during the final two years of this experiment.
Collaborating organizations in this effort include IPAM (Instituto de
Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia), EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuaria), University of Georgia, Stanford University, Universidade de
São Paulo/Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura, University of Miami,
Tulane University, and University of California, Irvine. The US National
Science Foundation, the US Agency for International Development, NASA, and
the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, provide funding for this experiment.
-----------
Blog that calls several aspects of the Independent story into question:
INDEFENSIBLE INDEPENDENT MANUFACTURES HYSTERIA (BADLY)
The Daily Ablution
By Scott Burgess
July 24, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/qholt
------------
NHNE News List:
To subscribe, send a message to:
nhnenews-...@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to:
nhnenews-u...@yahoogroups.com
To review current posts:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/messages
Published by David Sunfellow
NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE)
eMail: nh...@nhne.org
NHNE Website: http://www.nhne.org/
Phone: (928) 282-6120
Fax: (815) 642-0117
Appreciate what we are doing?
You can say so with a tax-deductible donation:
https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=8173
P.O. Box 2242
Sedona, AZ 86339
dli...@tds.net
>
> Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD
> http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
>
> 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.
You are not tying your data and conclusions closely enough to be very
convincing. For example, the chart at
http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
shows muslim growth rate (2.13) exceeding christian growth rate (1.39),
which does not support your #1 conclusion. The data show muslim
population growing faster than christian because 2.13 new muslims per
muslim per year is greater than 1.39 new christians per christian per
year.
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?)
>
> May I reiterate what I wrote in my last post:
It is not necessary to repeat large portions of text - it is sufficient
to summarize & rephrase, as you have done below.
>
> Perhaps I was a bit long winded. These boil down to:
>
> 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.
>
You focus on religious institutions, but have you ruled out a competing
hypothesis: poverty? Education seems like an appropriate response
either way, but I suspect you will have difficulty passing legislation
to pay for your educational program by taxing some religious
institutions and not others. You might have better luck paying for sex
education in public schools by taxing proportional to income,
regardless of religion.
> >
> > When Does Religion Influence Fertility? Kevin McQuillan _Population and
> > Development Review_ [30, no. 1 (Mar 04): 25-56]
>
> I don't have access to this journal, and would be grateful if you could
> send me a copy of the article. However, these conclusions ...
Sorry, I don't have access to it either. Perhaps your nearest library
can obtain a copy via inter-library loan. Ask your local librarian.
> .... are very similar to mine.
>
> 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.
>
> > http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/pdr/vol30_1.html
>
> I cannot find this in the open access journals ... could you kindly send
> me a copy?
>
> Luis
Glad to see you agree with the conclusions of a scientific literature
review on religion and fertility. While I highly recommend a visit to
your local library, you may find on-line access more convenient. The
Population Council's web-site contains their access policy for
_Population and Development Review_:
"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
Regards,
-dl
Alastair
> Anyone know where the scientific research rather than media report can
> be accessed?
Try http://www.whrc.org/southamerica/drought_sim/results.htm
Cheers, Alastair.
Coby Beck
[thanks Alastair, interesting!]
Good grief, is that Independent article really about this study??! There is
nothing in there I saw to justify suggesting we were two years away from
irreversable loss of the Amazon.
What's worse is it means now I have to sound like a "climate sceptic" and
complain about "chicken little alarmism".
Coby
Luis Gutierrez
So we agree that hair splitting on numbers from various sources is not
worthwhile ... so let's focus on the big picture ...
> 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?)
On a scale from zero to one, where zero is perfect gender balance and
one is perfect patriarchal imbalance, which of the following religions
is the most patriarchal? Which is the least patriarchal?
A. Bahai
B. Evangelical Christianity
C. Hindi
D. Islam
E. Roman Catholic
> You focus on religious institutions, but have you ruled out a competing
> hypothesis: poverty? Education seems like an appropriate response
> either way, but I suspect you will have difficulty passing legislation
> to pay for your educational program by taxing some religious
> institutions and not others. You might have better luck paying for sex
> education in public schools by taxing proportional to income,
> regardless of religion.
As I have stated, I have not ruled out any other factors, including
poverty ... I am simply focusing on religious violence because it is a
factor that is seldom considered.
> Glad to see you agree with the conclusions of a scientific literature
> review on religion and fertility.
I am very familiar with the scientific literature on religion and the
relationship of religion to several other knowledge domains including
fertility, but I don't presume I have read every article that has been
written. Will try to get a copy of the McQuillan article but, while his
conclusions are reasonable, they do not explicitly consider the issue of
religious violence ... do they?
Luis
Alastair
> >
> > Try http://www.whrc.org/southamerica/drought_sim/results.htm
>
> [thanks Alastair, interesting!]
>
> Good grief, is that Independent article really about this study??! There is
> nothing in there I saw to justify suggesting we were two years away from
> irreversable loss of the Amazon.
I think this is the part that is being misquoted:
"The death of such large trees that may take centuries to reach the top
of the forest canopy, increased from about one percent per year to nine
percent in the fourth year of the experiment, when soil water was
depleted."
and coupled with the following sentence:
"This sensitivity of large trees to drought means that a decline in
rainfall would likely cause a gradual transition from tall, green, lush
rainforest towards a shorter, more stunted forest where a great deal
more sunlight penetrates to the forest floor."
you get close to the Indy article which said:
"The trees managed the first year of drought without difficulty. In the
second year, they sunk their roots deeper to find moisture, but
survived. But in year three, they started dying. Beginning with the
tallest the trees started to come crashing down, exposing the forest
floor to the drying sun."
It seems to me that the Indy has hyped the report and you have hyped
the Indy article :-)
OTOH we don't know that Lean and/or Pearce have not spoken to the the
Woods Hole scientists and got a more alarming picture from them.
Also, note that this was an experiment - not real life. In this case
the trees put down their roots to find deeper water. In this
experiment, as I understand it, there was no attempt to prevent the
deep water table from being replenished from the surrounding forest
which was not covered, and thus the only trees in the centre of the
test area would feel the full effects of the artificial drought. This
would not be the case in a real drought, where all the trees would have
difficulty finding deep water. So in real life the situation may be
worse than in hte experiment.
> What's worse is it means now I have to sound like a "climate sceptic" and
> complain about "chicken little alarmism".
Don't forget that the Woods Hole report is written so that it doesn't
sound like "chicken little alarmism." Lean and Pearce may be reporting
what the scientists really believe :-(
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair
> It strikes me as highly apposite that the above story appeared at the
> same time as this report:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/5236482.stm
>
> ==
> Apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental
> groups and the UK government amount to "climate porn", a think-tank says.
You can read the full report in the PDF file here :
http://www.ippr.org/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf
> Lean and Pearce (the authors of the Amazon article) are responsible for
> some of the most extreme stuff in the UK press (ie the Independent).
Lean and Pearce are respected science journalists, with Fred Pearce
being better known for his contributions to the New Scientist. On the
other hand, Ereaut and Segint, the authors of the report, are a market
researcher and novelist respectively. See page 4.
On page 13 there is a picture showing alarmism. The alamists include
James Lovelock FRS, and the president of the Royal Society Lord May. On
page 17 a picture puts the other side of the case from Singer, Lindzen,
and Stott. Need I say more!
Cheers, Alastair.
Michael Tobis
in model experiments, I don't think there's any seriously postulated
atmospheric conditions that could make it have a Sahara-like drought.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Similarly, if the sun were to go nova we'd all be incinerated in a
day. That doesn't mean the sun is going nova. We have enough problems
without making stuff up.
Presumably the experiment had some serious motivation, but the article
doesn't really explain why it was done. Obviously incompetent
journalism is a major problem on climate issues. I don't think it's
because it's all that complicated, though
I wonder if for-profit journalism even makes sense.
I'm visiting Canada right now and getting my news from the
(tax-supported) CBC radio, which is a great relief, but of course a
sufficiently irresponsible government can kill off something like that
in a month, and that, I'm afraid, is not just unrealistic panic.
Maybe journalism is just too important to be left to journalists.
mt
James Annan
> While cutting down Amazon rainforest somewhat decreases net rainfall
> in model experiments, I don't think there's any seriously postulated
> atmospheric conditions that could make it have a Sahara-like drought.
> Do correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Similarly, if the sun were to go nova we'd all be incinerated in a
> day. That doesn't mean the sun is going nova. We have enough problems
> without making stuff up.
>
> Presumably the experiment had some serious motivation, but the article
> doesn't really explain why it was done. Obviously incompetent
> journalism is a major problem on climate issues. I don't think it's
> because it's all that complicated, though
>
> I wonder if for-profit journalism even makes sense.
Well, bizarre as it might seem, Gavin has just cited that article as an
example of "good" coverage of the story (first link in his commentary
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=333>. It seems he has found
something even worse (also by Lean in the Indy, no surprise there)!
James
Coby Beck
From: "Alastair" <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
>
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Try http://www.whrc.org/southamerica/drought_sim/results.htm
> It seems to me that the Indy has hyped the report and you have hyped
> the Indy article :-)
In my defense, I did just say "amazon very vulnerable", not "gone
tomorrow!". But I was admittedly more upset by the journalism than the
report it described (thanks for that link, and thanks to WH for the very
nice web site).
> OTOH we don't know that Lean and/or Pearce have not spoken to the the
> Woods Hole scientists and got a more alarming picture from them.
This could be true, and I actually have no problem with reporting
scientist's personal, yet expert, concerns. I would prefer however if it
were clearly identified as such, and not implied that whatever study in
question clearly supports them.
> Also, note that this was an experiment - not real life. In this case
> the trees put down their roots to find deeper water. In this
> experiment, as I understand it, there was no attempt to prevent the
> deep water table from being replenished from the surrounding forest
> which was not covered, and thus the only trees in the centre of the
> test area would feel the full effects of the artificial drought. This
> would not be the case in a real drought, where all the trees would have
> difficulty finding deep water. So in real life the situation may be
> worse than in hte experiment.
I thought of that too, and it seems a very likely significant factor. More
so now that I read how deep the soil is. I had always been under the
impression that amazonian soils were very shallow.
Coby
James Annan
> Lean and Pearce are respected science journalists,
Any respect I might have for them quickly evaporates when I see this
sort of stuff.
> On page 13 there is a picture showing alarmism. The alamists include
> James Lovelock FRS, and the president of the Royal Society Lord May. On
> page 17 a picture puts the other side of the case from Singer, Lindzen,
> and Stott. Need I say more!
Indeed, it is a shame that the extremists at both ends of the debate
feature so prominently in the media coverage. You won't find much of
Lovelock's apocalyptic vision (or anything else by any of those people)
in the next IPCC report, for example.
James
dli...@tds.net
> So we agree that hair splitting on numbers from various sources is not
> worthwhile ... so let's focus on the big picture ...
I think we might agree that grounding the discussion in empirical data
would help us picture the issues and keep them in focus.
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.
> > [dl] (how do you measure "patriarchal mind set" and does it vary
> > by religion as birth rates vary by religion?)
>
> On a scale from zero to one, where zero is perfect gender balance and
> one is perfect patriarchal imbalance, which of the following religions
> is the most patriarchal? Which is the least patriarchal?
>
> A. Bahai
> B. Evangelical Christianity
> C. Hindi
> D. Islam
> E. Roman Catholic
You have introduced the concept of "patriarchal mind set" into this
discussion as an important influence on reproductive decision making -
more important than religion. Can you tell us more about this - for
example, does "patriarchal mind set" vary by religion? Does it explain
why people of some relgions have higher or lower birth rates than
people of other religions? Have you (or anyone else) measured it, or
measured its relation to birth rates or religious affiliation, and if
so, what are the findings?
>
> > You focus on religious institutions, but have you ruled out a competing
> > hypothesis: poverty?
>
> As I have stated, I have not ruled out any other factors, including
> poverty ... I am simply focusing on religious violence because it is a
> factor that is seldom considered.
Seldom considered, perhaps because any measurable influence it may have
is explained by other factors?
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?
Thank you,
-dl
Alastair McDonald
>
>> It seems to me that the Indy has hyped the report and you have hyped
>> the Indy article :-)
>
> tomorrow!". But I was admittedly more upset by the journalism than the
> report it described (thanks for that link, and thanks to WH for the very
> nice web site).
I take that back. I now see, having read RealClimate, that there were two
articles in the Independent, neither of which was based on the research
which
was described in the I posted. That first appeared at the beginning of this
year's rainy season after one year of drought. Now that rainy season is
over,
and it again produced no rain, the WHRC scientist are very concerned that
the ITCZ has shifted permanently. That is the concerns that the Independent
is reporting. So my previous remark:
>> OTOH we don't know that Lean and/or Pearce have not spoken to the
>> Woods Hole scientists and got a more alarming picture from them.
seems to be correct. (Should I laugh or cry :-?)
Here are what the scientists say:
' Dr Nepstead [from WHRC] expects "mega-fires" rapidly to sweep across the
drying jungle. With the trees gone, the soil will bake in the sun and the
rainforest could become desert."'
'Dr Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world's top
forest ecologists, says the research shows that "the lock has broken" on the
Amazon ecosystem. She adds: the Amazon is "headed in a terrible direction."'
In the second article
http://www.ecoearth.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=58636
which is also a report of recent meetings. It is summed up by this remark:
'This year, says Otavio Luz Castello, the water is draining away even faster
than the last one - and there are still more than three months of the dry
season to go. He adds: "I am very concerned."'
So it is not you who is panicking needlessly. It is the Brazilian
scientists who are panicking based on the facts.
Cheers, Alastair.
Luis Gutierrez
> I think we might agree that grounding the discussion in empirical data
> would help us picture the issues and keep them in focus.
If you limit the discussion to things that can be numerically measured
in some unambiguous units of measurement, then you may be excluding some
of the factors that really matter. I am in favor of using measurements
when they are meaningful and credible, but in human affairs it is wise
not to give excessive importance to numerical measurements.
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.
> 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.
OK, but Canada is not the world. In other regions, the rankings by
birth rate would be different. This forum is a discussion about
***global change***, and we better keep it at that level unless we want
to drown in a sea of minutiae. Indeed, sometimes it is very useful to
look at regional data sets. However, cross-regional comparisons are
currently very fluid due to globalization and migration.
> You have introduced the concept of "patriarchal mind set" into this
> discussion as an important influence on reproductive decision making -
> more important than religion. Can you tell us more about this - for
> example, does "patriarchal mind set" vary by religion? Does it explain
> why people of some relgions have higher or lower birth rates than
> people of other religions? Have you (or anyone else) measured it, or
> measured its relation to birth rates or religious affiliation, and if
> so, what are the findings?
Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly, so let me try to explain my
understanding of "patriarchy." The point is not that patriarchy is more
important than religion. This is not the point. The point is that
patriarchy *corrupts* religion, and by corrupting religion contributes
to many other forms of corruption.
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=51;#en-NLT-72
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
> Seldom considered, perhaps because any measurable influence it may have
> is explained by other factors?
It is certainly possible for any "effect" to be caused by more than one
factor. If the effect is bad, then it is a matter of due diligence to
investigate all the known factors, and even search for hitherto unknwon
factors in order to mitigate harm to humanity as much as possible.
> Violence may influence death rates too, but it is not a major influence
> - and religious violence even less than violence from all causes.
Not sure that this is true.
> 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.
According to the daily news, it seems to me that religion-induced
violence is not something to be ignored.
> 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?
Examples:
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_VAWReligion.php
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.
Luis
Alastair McDonald
From: "James Annan" <james...@gmail.com>
[snip]
> Indeed, it is a shame that the extremists at both ends of the debate
> feature so prominently in the media coverage. You won't find much of
> Lovelock's apocalyptic vision (or anything else by any of those people)
> in the next IPCC report, for example.
No, and I expect the next IPCC report will have the same impact as the
previous ones - none!
Here is a press report by another science journalist: Bill Blakemore
of ABC News. He writes:
A number of scientists tell me that [a methane clathrate release] would take
the Earth up into temperatures humankind has never experienced - and
probably could not survive.
They believe it's happened for natural reasons before - before, for example,
the Jurassic age, when dinosaurs, but no humans, roamed the earth.
That's why they insist we must stop the unnatural burning of fossil fuels -
oil, coal and gas - which risks giving such a methane mega-burp an
artificial kick that could - hard as this is to take in - end civilization.
Small doses are the best way to take in such news.
Psychologists tell us that a little denial when facing truly frightening
news can, at first, be a good thing. It helps us hold ourselves together in
face of the threat, helps keep our "meaning systems" intact.
As long as we keep working back towards reality.
No child wants to think it can harm the basic wellbeing of a protective
parent who provides its only world. They can't even believe they could
do such a thing.
Climate scientists are telling us we are doing just that to our own Mother
Earth, and we should believe it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2274439&page=3
James, when are you going to stop following the IPCC herd, and grow
out of your denialism? Accept that James Lovelock is older and wiser
than you. He has an FRS to prove it!
Cheers, Alastair.
Don Libby
news:44D541DB...@peoplepc.com...
>
> dli...@tds.net wrote:
>
>> I think we might agree that grounding the discussion in empirical data
>> would help us picture the issues and keep them in focus.
>
> If you limit the discussion to things that can be numerically measured
> in some unambiguous units of measurement, then you may be excluding some
> of the factors that really matter.
True, but if we make statements that are clearly contradicted by data, we
should not ignore the data.
> In my original post I listed some examples of aggregate population
> trends that are informative.
Not to be picky, but the chart you cited was not a trend (change over time)
it was a cross-section comparing nations at a single point in time (2005).
And to my eye, not particularly informative except to say that some nations
are more developed than others, by various measures of development.
> 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.
Fertility rates are but one of dozens of indicators lumped together in the
cited chart, but fertility is the dominant factor in population growth,
which is a major driver of global change - in fact - population growth *is*
a global change.
>
> 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.
There needn't be a commonly accepted scale for a lone pioneer to make a
measurement. You got a good start on it when you asked me to rate religions
from zero to one on your innovative patriarchy scale. Ask your colleagues,
ask your students, collect about 100 opinions from a broad cross-section of
points of view, then publish your results and you'll be well on the way to
constructing a commonly accepted scale - the "Gutierrez Patriarchy Scale".
> If you exclude those critical factors from consideration,
> then you are ignoring the things that really matter.
It is always interesting to see new ideas about what really matters, but
they should be considered in the context of what is already known to really
matter.
> OK, but Canada is not the world. In other regions, the rankings by
> birth rate would be different.
I picked the Canadian data as a matter of convenience to save the work of
constructing a table, but the Canadian ranking reflects the global ranking,
as shown by this table that I laboriously constructed:
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.
>
>> You have introduced the concept of "patriarchal mind set" into this
>> discussion as an important influence on reproductive decision making -
>> more important than religion.
>
> Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly, so let me try to explain my
> understanding of "patriarchy." The point is not that patriarchy is more
> important than religion.
I was mistaken - reviewing what you wrote I see that you said patriarchy is
more important than birth control (not more important than religion).
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
But it *is* amenable to measurement - your rating scale being an example. I
have shown that there is a correlation between religion and birth rates.
Now you have merely to show that the reason for this correlation is
religious indoctrination in the patriarchal mind set. On your scale, does
patriarchy grade from lowest for non-religious people and highest for
muslims?
>
> 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.
> 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.
Okay, but again, how do you recognize, observe, or "measure" the existence,
rigidity, and dominance of patriarchy (religious or otherwise) in a country?
It needn't be a numerical measure, but it should at least be
intersubjective.
> This of course is work in progress, but I am not
> alone in thinking that the religious violence hypothesis is worth
> exploring.
Worthwhile indeed: I would encourage you to explore it more rigorously.
>> Violence may influence death rates too, but it is not a major influence
>> - and religious violence even less than violence from all causes.
>
> Not sure that this is true.
It is. Source: UN WHO Global Burden of Disease
http://www.who.int/whr/2002/annex/en/index.html
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?
>
>> 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.
>
> According to the daily news, it seems to me that religion-induced
> violence is not something to be ignored.
It should be kept in perspective. To that end, data are often more helpful
than headlines.
Regards,
-dl
Luis Gutierrez
> True, but if we make statements that are clearly contradicted by data, we
> should not ignore the data.
Agree, assuming that the data is applicable and credible ....
> Not to be picky, but the chart you cited was not a trend (change over time)
> it was a cross-section comparing nations at a single point in time (2005).
> And to my eye, not particularly informative except to say that some nations
> are more developed than others, by various measures of development.
Which chart are you specifically referring to? Of course some nations
are more developed than others, but which ones? Generally speaking, it
seems clear to me that nations in which a rigid religious patriarchy is
socially influential are the least developed by any of the common
measures such as literacy rates, GNI per capita, etc.
> Fertility rates are but one of dozens of indicators lumped together in the
> cited chart, but fertility is the dominant factor in population growth,
> which is a major driver of global change - in fact - population growth *is*
> a global change.
It is, whether due to fertility rates or other factors ... and, as you
say, population growth is a global change ... one of many, all
interdependent.
> There needn't be a commonly accepted scale for a lone pioneer to make a
> measurement. You got a good start on it when you asked me to rate religions
> from zero to one on your innovative patriarchy scale. Ask your colleagues,
> ask your students, collect about 100 opinions from a broad cross-section of
> points of view, then publish your results and you'll be well on the way to
> constructing a commonly accepted scale - the "Gutierrez Patriarchy Scale".
:-) A "commonly accepted" GPS? Easier said than done....
> It is always interesting to see new ideas about what really matters, but
> they should be considered in the context of what is already known to really
> matter.
Can you provide a "commonly accepted" list of what "is already known to
really matter"?
> I picked the Canadian data as a matter of convenience to save the work of
> constructing a table, but the Canadian ranking reflects the global ranking,
> as shown by this table that I laboriously constructed:
>
> 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)
I don't doubt that this regression is the best one you can get ... but
is it derived from sampling that meets the requirements of the Central
Limit Theorem? Do you have bounds on the errors of estimation for each
of the regression coefficients?
> 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.
The basic reason is that patriarchal religions perpetuate patriarchal
families in which the wife must always be willing to have unprotected
sex at the request of her husband ... and women generally stay at home
to clean, cook, and get pregnant ... no professional careers ...
> I was mistaken - reviewing what you wrote I see that you said patriarchy is
> more important than birth control (not more important than religion).
OK
> But it *is* amenable to measurement - your rating scale being an example. I
> have shown that there is a correlation between religion and birth rates.
> Now you have merely to show that the reason for this correlation is
> religious indoctrination in the patriarchal mind set. On your scale, does
> patriarchy grade from lowest for non-religious people and highest for
> muslims?
Not exactly ... some religions are more patriarchal than others ... some
religions have mitigated the patriarchal bias, others keep trying to
perpetuate the patriarchal bias and even increase it. I think birth
rates are relatively low for non-religious people *and* for people in
the least patriarchal religious traditions ... and relatively high for
people in the most patriarchal religious traditions.
> Okay, but again, how do you recognize, observe, or "measure" the existence,
> rigidity, and dominance of patriarchy (religious or otherwise) in a country?
> It needn't be a numerical measure, but it should at least be
> intersubjective.
Just watch the news from countries in which patriarchy is dominant.
Women are practically invisible.
> Worthwhile indeed: I would encourage you to explore it more rigorously.
OK
> It is. Source: UN WHO Global Burden of Disease
> http://www.who.int/whr/2002/annex/en/index.html
>
> 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?
Again, you have to be careful when trying to capture social realities
with numbers. According to some estimates, there may be as many as 200
million women in sex slavery. They typically age fast and die young. I
hope we can agree that sex slavery is a form of violence, but I don't
think this subset of the female population is tracked by WHO.
> It should be kept in perspective. To that end, data are often more helpful
> than headlines.
In China and other countries, boys are wanted, girls are aborted. Along
the border between Mexico and the United States, mass graves have been
discovered containing hundreds of female corpses; it seems that the
"coyotes" who bring ilegal immigrants from Mexico get the women's money,
rape them, and then kill them because they don't have the same market
value as the men. In Thailand, it is common for poor parents to sell
their daughters as prostitutes. In India, some brides get killed due to
dowry disputes or simply because they are not pleasing to the groom's
family .... but it is hard to find data about these cases ...
I think it is wise to consider both data and news ... and balance both
according to their credibility.
Luis
Don Libby
From: "Luis Gutierrez" <luisgu...@peoplepc.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 505] Re: Global Impacts of Religious Violence
>> Not to be picky, but the chart you cited was not a trend (change over
>> time)
>
> Which chart are you specifically referring to?
The chart at the start: "Selected MDG Indicators for 177 Countries"
http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisustv02n07.html
>> 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.
>>
> The basic reason is that patriarchal religions perpetuate patriarchal
> families in which the wife must always be willing to have unprotected
> sex at the request of her husband ... and women generally stay at home
> to clean, cook, and get pregnant ... no professional careers ...
Seems plausible. However, I think religious communities generally enforce
conformity by the threat of ostracism or social isolation, rather than by
the threat of violence. So I can see the effect of religion on fertility
via patriarchal doctrine, but the connection to religious violence still
isn't clear.
You also mention several examples of bias and violence against women (e.g.
sex slavery, female infanticide), but the connection to religious violence
isn't clear. Why isn't this thread called "Global impacts of patriarchal
violence"?
-dl