Ethical dilemma--Teaching Environmental Science but not Population control

[Chris in VA]

That's an awkward title, to be sure.

So here I am, researching what text to use for science next year for my Sr. in high school son. He wants to do one semester of a physical geography/environmental science-type course. He's had one semester of physical geo already, and we thought we'd just round it out to a whole year, credit-wise.

 

So I come across Holt's Environmental Science book, and some wonderful online resources--quizzes, essay questions, etc. Great, I think, I'll just get the book on Amazon and off we'll go--

 

Until I read the first chapter on Amazon's preview page--and it says

all environmental problems are caused by population increase.

 

My dilemma is, I believe children are gifts from God. I believe He opens the womb. I don't want my son to be taught that it's wrong to have a lot of kids.

Can I use this text? What would you do?

 

Know of any other good texts to use?

[Quiver0f10]

That's an awkward title, to be sure.

So here I am, researching what text to use for science next year for my Sr. in high school son. He wants to do one semester of a physical geography/environmental science-type course. He's had one semester of physical geo already, and we thought we'd just round it out to a whole year, credit-wise.

 

So I come across Holt's Environmental Science book, and some wonderful online resources--quizzes, essay questions, etc. Great, I think, I'll just get the book on Amazon and off we'll go--

 

Until I read the first chapter on Amazon's preview page--and it says

all environmental problems are caused by population increase.

 

My dilemma is, I believe children are gifts from God. I believe He opens the womb. I don't want my son to be taught that it's wrong to have a lot of kids.

Can I use this text? What would you do?

 

Know of any other good texts to use?

 

If it were a younger child, I might hesistate, but your son is almost an adult so I would use it, but I would have him research both sides of the pupulation debate and let him make his own descisions.

[Philothea]

I also believe that God is in control of family size. However, I think it would be a good opportunity to introduce your son to the politics that go along with this unit study.

 

Chances are that in his adult life, he will encounter more than plenty people with opposing views on family and the enviornment.

[dirty ethel rackham]

A dear friend of mine had this same dilemma with her daughter who was taking Environmental Biiology at the local CC. She and her daughter talked about it and the mom assigned her to do some research. She used this as an opportunity to show her daughter that there were differences of opinion on scientific matters and that she should use her critical thinking skills to address the dilemma rather than blindly accept something in a textbook. It was an opportunity to highlight that people can use numbers and statistics to fit their agenda, rather than adhere to scientific honesty.

 

As it turns out, areas that have very high population are not necessarily contributing to environmental stress to the same degree as areas with more wealthy areas with lower population. Her daughter came to the conclusion that is was not the number of people, but the way the people used resources. Even though they have many children in their family, due to their frugal lifestyle and "green" living, they had a lower environmental impact than families much smaller than theirs. Even the professor was impressed with the fact that her family has the lowest impact score of anyone in the class.

 

I can't help you on textbook recommendations, but if you can't find anything else, I encourage you not to be afraid of using this. A sr. in high school should not be afraid of being exposed to ideas that do not jive with his. He will face this stuff eventually, so why not while you can guide him and help him ask the right questions?

[dangermom]

Hm. I find that to be a problematic statement, even leaving out the question of whether children are a God-given gift. I would have serious reservations about the quality of the entire text.

 

I haven't yet gotten to the logic stage, so I don't know how to express it right, but I feel that statement has serious logical problems. But I can't stay to elaborate.

[JennifersLost]

I think it would be an interesting jumping off point to think about the question: what is God in control of and what isn't he in control of? I.e., if he should be in control of when babies are born and how many we have, why shouldn't he be in control of how we die? In other words, if we shouldn't intervene in births why is intervening in death okay?

 

Population control used to be handled by God through limited resources, famines, natural disasters and diseases. Now we have taken over control of most of these things, so our population increases in ways it never did before.

 

I believe that we will be able to mitigate things for awhile - probably surviving with a much greater population on earth than many think possible right now. But in the end, of course, God will take care of it, either by most people starving to death, fighting over diminished resources, spreading new super-diseases brought about by overcrowding, etc.

 

So in the end it's all about how we want to live in the meantime, right? Since we've taken over control of lifespan, should we also control birthrate? Is it all right to control one and not the other? Or should both be left to God?

 

Sounds like a pretty interesting discussion to me.

[Alenee]

Hold on to your seats folks! This guy has some serious issues!

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63755

[nancypants]

If it were a younger child, I might hesistate, but your son is almost an adult so I would use it, but I would have him research both sides of the pupulation debate and let him make his own descisions.

 

Ditto.

[Alenee]

Didn't mean to post and leave like a troll or something.;)

 

I agree with the others. A Sr. in high school should definitely get into these studies so he/she can be prepared for what is ahead. However, I also agree with the post about the logic issues. I'd look for another text.

 

I'd been waiting for an opportunity to post that link in my OP. It's obviously the extreme but it's worthy of a great discussion!:D

 

ETA: The following is more a rant and not directly related to the OP nor the link I posted.

 

It's interesting to me what some want government to control while not taking a look at what must be done once the government has that responsibility. It's a snowball effect. Where does it stop? And what do we lose in the process?

[Doran]

If it were a younger child, I might hesistate, but your son is almost an adult so I would use it, but I would have him research both sides of the pupulation debate and let him make his own descisions.

 

 

And, this is why I so respect you, Jean. At a certain point (and imo, a high school senior is certainly there), we are wisest to not try to keep "issues" from our children but to guide them to/through them and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

 

If you like everything else about the text, then don't let this stop you from using it.

[Chris in VA]

Thank you so much for all your input. Keep it coming!

We are making this a lighter course, but perhaps the idea that people impact the world, and asking the questions regarding that impact and how it all relates to things like population control and responsibility/stewardship, and giving to others (there'd be less poverty if we shared, etc), could really be the basis for a few meaty, good discussions, and maybe a paper.

 

Ita that he's old enough to see both sides (multiple sides, more rightly) of an issue. I'm not sure where to find the "other" side of this text, but perhaps that should be his assignment.

 

Thanks again.

[Carol in Cal.]

However, you should let him know that to teach it as fact is overstating the evidence significantly.

 

Large families in the US, for instance, may have a much more significant ecological 'footprint' than large families in Europe. Large Amish families in the US would almost certainly have a smaller ecological footprint than large US Silicon Valley families. One has to dig deeper than with simple population numbers. But the population numbers should be considered as well, rather than ignored or looked at in isolation.

 

It is certainly true that reducing family size has helped better the economic lot of some people in some countries, particularly among the areas where microcredit has been helpful. Everyone can point to certain changes that have made this economical balance shift against large families--better prenatal care, higher rates of childhood immunization, better birth attendance and hygiene--all of these decrease infant and childhood mortality, ensuring that families do not need as many children to be reasonably certain of having someone to take care of elderly parents when they are no longer able to do so themselves. This changes the economics of large vs. small families a great deal in many countries, and also changes the carrying power of small holdings. In addition, it postpones the economic contribution of children in a way that is arguably good for them in the long run but can be deplored as making them much more unaffordable to raise in poor areas. However, one could argue (and QF believers probably would argue) that the economic benefits of reducing family size are only material and are at the expense of spiritual values.

 

This complicated issue should not be reduced to one factor or one belief without consideration of all of the data. And you and your son will be better able to argue for your belief if you can honestly say and truly demonstrate your thorough understanding of the other side.

[Kathy in MD]

I think it would be an interesting jumping off point to think about the question: what is God in control of and what isn't he in control of? I.e., if he should be in control of when babies are born and how many we have, why shouldn't he be in control of how we die? In other words, if we shouldn't intervene in births why is intervening in death okay?

 

Population control used to be handled by God through limited resources, famines, natural disasters and diseases. Now we have taken over control of most of these things, so our population increases in ways it never did before.

 

I believe that we will be able to mitigate things for awhile - probably surviving with a much greater population on earth than many think possible right now. But in the end, of course, God will take care of it, either by most people starving to death, fighting over diminished resources, spreading new super-diseases brought about by overcrowding, etc.

 

So in the end it's all about how we want to live in the meantime, right? Since we've taken over control of lifespan, should we also control birthrate? Is it all right to control one and not the other? Or should both be left to God?

 

Sounds like a pretty interesting discussion to me.

 

I agree, I agree, I agree! (unfortunately I can't get the emotocon to work)

[Kathy in MD]

 

.......It is certainly true that reducing family size has helped better the economic lot of some people in some countries, particularly among the areas where microcredit has been helpful. Everyone can point to certain changes that have made this economical balance shift against large families--better prenatal care, higher rates of childhood immunization, better birth attendance and hygiene--all of these decrease infant and childhood mortality, ensuring that families do not need as many children to be reasonably certain of having someone to take care of elderly parents when they are no longer able to do so themselves. This changes the economics of large vs. small families a great deal in many countries, and also changes the carrying power of small holdings. In addition, it postpones the economic contribution of children in a way that is arguably good for them in the long run but can be deplored as making them much more unaffordable to raise in poor areas. However, one could argue (and QF believers probably would argue) that the economic benefits of reducing family size are only material and are at the expense of spiritual values.......

 

At the same time you look at the economic penalties for the extremely poor in poor countries, look at the emotional and spiritual costs of large family costs. Look also at the spiritual costs of watching young children go hungry or even starve, or sacrificing the children of one sex for the benifit of the other. What abuse occurs because the parents are stressed out trying to feed too many? Having too many children is not always a spiritual blessing.

[Carol in Cal.]

At the same time you look at the economic penalties for the extremely poor in poor countries, look at the emotional and spiritual costs of large family costs. Look also at the spiritual costs of watching young children go hungry or even starve, or sacrificing the children of one sex for the benifit of the other. What abuse occurs because the parents are stressed out trying to feed too many? Having too many children is not always a spiritual blessing.

 

I was trying pretty hard to give a nuanced neutral review of the arguments, and have not stated my own opinion. That being the case, I'm not sure whether you are thinking that I disagree with you, or whether you're just using my post as a jumping off point. I'm curious as to why you quoted me.

 

(But, not mad or annoyed. Just curious. Flat emo level--since that doesn't always come through in posts.)

[Kathy in MD]

As several have already noted, the statement is wrong from an environmental standpoint because different cultures use different amounts of resources.

 

I've taken environmental courses where the impact of humans on the environment was studied. One problem that bothered both my favorite environmental teacher and me was how to avoid overcrowding and the associated ills, yet allow people have the size family they want. Some people just do wonderfully with huge families, yet others shouldn't have or don't want any children. But there is often pressure on both ends of the spectrum to meet the "average". We never did come up with a satisfactory solution for the world :), but we both did adopt so helped crowding that way. I will admit I wanted one bio child in addition to an adopted child, but that wasn't to be. So then I wanted 2 adopted, but that didn't work out either;)

 

If you want to study just the effects of overpopulation without the political and moral ramifications of human population, study what happens when predators are removed from the wild. A good case study is what happened to the deer population and the other wildlife as well as the health of the forest and soil when the wolves were eliminated from the North Kaibab plateau in AZ. Other studies have looked at the impact on bird and fox populations when the wolf was removed in parts of the southwest and the coyote population surged as a result. Also look at the impact on the forests and wildlife in the east as the deer population has soared do to restricted hunting and other predators.

[PiCO]

Hold on to your seats folks! This guy has some serious issues!

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63755

 

I'm not sure if you mean the guy from World Net Daily has some serious issues, or the guy from Voluntary Human Extintion Movement has some serious issues. (I have that opinion of WND.)

 

 

If you go to the VHEMT (pronounced vehement... get it?) website, you will notice that it's meant to be amusing. Here's a quote from their question/answer section:

 

 

Q: Are you really serious?

We're really vehement.

Many see humor in The Movement and think we can't be serious about voluntary human extinction, but in spite of the seriousness of both situation and movement, there's room for humor. In fact, without humor, Earth's condition gets unbearably depressing -- a little levity eases the gravity.

True, wildlife rapidly going extinct and 40,000 children dying each day are not laughing matters, but neither laughing nor bemoaning will change what's happening. We may as well have some fun as we work and play toward a better world.

Besides, returning Earth to its natural splendor and ending needless suffering of humanity are happy thoughts -- no sense moping around in gloom and doom.

 

Personally, I like to read opinions by people with a sense of humor, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. ;)

[Chris in VA]

Kathy in Md (sorry, I don't know how to use the quote thing!)

 

One difference between the animal overpopulation thing and the people overpopulation thing is that animals don't help each other.

 

I'm still having a hard time with this.

[Ravin]

I took a college anthropology course on society and the environment, and in a nutshell that statement in the textbook is a gross oversimplification.

 

I'd supplement it with some other readings, maybe have him do some research. Mere population pressure is NOT the cause of all environmental problems, though it is the cause of some of them in some places. Disproportionate use of resources, failure to account for enviromental cost of resource extraction and waste, individual and societal "footprint", the specific ecologies of different environments (A desert cannot support as many people as a rain forest, nor a forest as many as a grassland or coastal area, etc.), the ways in which resources are managed or mismanaged, etc.

 

Anyone who can't get past Malthus in their understanding of human environmental impact needs to get their head out of the 18th century sand!

[Ravin]

Also, population control tends to be self-imposed. Studies have found that with education (not talking sex ed, just general education) and transition from a poor rural lifestyle to a more urban or cosmopolitan one, people tend to self-impose family size limits, so as to concentrate resources on educating a few children, rather than having many who are needed to help work and support the household at the subsistence level.

[Peek a Boo]

Having too many children is not always a spiritual blessing.

 

 

I don't think it's that "too many children" aren't a blessing, I think it's a shame that some people/places can't HANDLE adequately that many spiritual blessings.

 

and as for the OP, i agree w/ most everyone else that at the senior level, studying the issue is great.

 

these are a few links that have been shared with me by several people. Some I agree with, some I don't, and most are outdated. But they can serve as a stepping point for WHERE to look and for WHAT terms to look.

 

http://www.chp.ca/commentaries/LessonsInGlobalPopulation_ALL.htm

 

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=30183

 

http://www.cwpe.org/node/77

 

good luck :)

[Phred]

An interesting discussion to be sure. I thought I'd add my two cents.

 

First off, family size is irrelevant. It's the overall size of the population that matters. If there were only five families and they each had ten kids that wouldn't make as much of an impact as one hundred families with only one kid each. What's happened is that, today, we no longer have a need for large families in an area where all the children will live and there isn't any reason to have them as they don't help on the farm or aid in helping the family unit survive. (I know many of you believe that a deity gives you each child. If that's so then that deity can just as easily give you those children if you're practicing birth control or not.) More than a few children is not a need, it's desire. And when we do this at a time when there are no more resources to support them, it's irresponsible.

 

Think about this. What resources, water, food, wood, metal, oil... what resources are going to waste because we don't use them? What river makes it to the sea without going thru at least two dams? What lake is rising in level? What food source is showing a surplus? What area of land doesn't have people living on it? Then look a that land and ask yourself why? Because it's a desert, that's why. People are like a virus on this planet. We eat things up and spit out waste. At what point are we going to draw the line and say, "enough!"

 

All the problems that we're facing today... oil prices, wars, shortages... you name it. All can be directly attributed to too many people. The one that always comes to mind is Kashmir. Do you know why India and Pakistan fight over Kashmir? Why they have nuclear weapons aimed at each other right this very minute? Because that's where the melt water runs down the mountains. Water. It's a battle over WATER.

 

But, we're here in the US you say. "Why should we worry about that? What's having a few more of God's little gifts gonna matter in the long run to that?" Have you read about the Colorado river? The aquifers drying up? We're in the same boat about to fight with Mexico about water. Heck, California is about to fight with all the states upstream about water. Arizona and New Mexico can't keep the desert green without it either. And every kid needs more. More oil, more water, more more more.

 

You can't teach environmental concerns without teaching about population. If it weren't for people who'd care if there weren't water or if the rainforests were chopped down? The whole point is that we're trying to keep an environment that's friendly to humans. By allowing our population to grow without boundaries we're contributing to an environment that's not friendly to humans.

 

Even a dog is smart enough not to poop in its dish. Why aren't we?

[melissel]

Well said, Phred. (Or should that be "Right said, Phred"? :D)

[Jenny in Atl]

Yup! Just look at the mess the State of GA is in. Too many people and not enough water. Even before we were in this drought, there were multiple warnings sent out as early as the late 70's about the coming water crisis. Everyone always thinks things are fine in their neck of the woods till reality comes home to roost. In the end nature will begin to take care of the overpopulation problem, but it will be at a sad and ugly cost to all of us.

[Kathy in MD]

Pherd, Well put!

 

And don't forget that we're also mining the water under the Great Plains to grow wheat. And yes we are mining it. We're pumping it out much faster than it's being recharged. The way we use it today, it's a non-renewable resource.

 

How will we feed our own grandchildren when that aquafer is decimated, much less the children around the world?

[Kathy in MD]

I was trying pretty hard to give a nuanced neutral review of the arguments, and have not stated my own opinion. That being the case, I'm not sure whether you are thinking that I disagree with you, or whether you're just using my post as a jumping off point. I'm curious as to why you quoted me.

 

(But, not mad or annoyed. Just curious. Flat emo level--since that doesn't always come through in posts.)

 

I probably quoted too much-- and worded my response poorly. I realized that you were presenting different arguments. I was reacting to the following line:

 

"However, one could argue (and QF believers probably would argue) that the economic benefits of reducing family size are only material and are at the expense of spiritual values."

 

 

I should have said that sometimes the economic benefits of a smaller family included being able to adequately feed all your children. And that sometimes there is a spiritual cost when you can't do it.

 

We shouldn't in our wealth, and by comparison even the poorest American is better off than many in other countries, blithely brush off the economic advantages of a smaller family to the truly poor. We're fortunate in this country in that we rarely see true hunger any more, much less the starvation seen in many countries. However we can often see the stress and tension and even verbal abuse caused by money woes. Imagine how much worse that can become if the material woes are so horrible that just feeding your children is almost impossible.

 

I probably still haven't worded it well, so please give me the benefit of a doubt.

[Kathy in MD]

Kathy in Md (sorry, I don't know how to use the quote thing!)

 

One difference between the animal overpopulation thing and the people overpopulation thing is that animals don't help each other.

 

I'm still having a hard time with this.

 

True, today we can ship food and aid around the world. However there are many today who still don't receive the food aid because of war, national pride (I'm thinking of N. Korea) and other reasons.

 

However when you study the results of animal overpopulation, you can see the complex interaction of animals, plants, soil and even the micro-climate in some cases. Often times overpopulation degrades the soil and environment to the point that, even after the excess population is removed, the area can't support the same number it did prior to the population boom.

 

Some of this information can be applied to human overpopulation today. If you look at the entire earth as a closed ecosystem, you can apply even more of what is learned from animal studies. When we export food to feed others, we have to realize we are shipping more than just wheat. We are shipping our water and losing our soil to errosion to feed them. I'm not advocating that we let today's population starve, but I do think we need to consider what strains continually increasing the world population will put on our ability to feed the next two generations. Looking at animal studies may give us some insight.