Jeffrey Sachs' fear of 3rd world womens' wombs

"Common Wealth" is the title of the occasionally interesting, often outright sexist thoughts of the economist and co-creator of Goldman and Sachs. influenced by keynesian economics, - that poverty can be a powerful creator of violence; but yet ultimately profoundly influenced by neo conservative milton friedman ideology - Markets are Awesome - especially when implemented by force.

Theme of the day: population control. Watch out world. women are on the loose. With babies. lots of them. ahhhhh! Human survival is doomed. The culprit? women. Poor women from Africa and India would kill us all in a heartbeat if they could do it tomorrow. Unless... we fix this problem Now! through: "voluntary reduction in fertility rates". Why Jeffrey, you are a genius.

getting serious, so i can present my viewpoints 'academically' in a classroom that does not look kindly on sarcasm or jokes.

Sachs presents 10 other positive things that all point to lower fertility - eg education for girls, labor equality, health services,empowerment through equality in land titles and the law, better child survival rates.

1. misguided cause and effect
- low Fertility rates (having 3 children or less)is not a virtue by itself. Having fewer children does not magically create a functioning educational and health system. It does not grant equal access to the law. It certainly does not stop male privilege and gendered violence.
(In fact, male privilege may be the single largest factor creating all of these other negative factors, yet Jeffery does not address this. For example, he claims that education is important for women to 'get ahead'. I don't disagree. However, Conservative male dominated governments in places like Iran and that seized power they forbade women to work - even those with a university degree. Female doctors, lawyers, and professors that had been earning an income were suddenly barred from using their education. The only thing that stood in the way was penis power. The same with Afghanistan. the US supporter the Taliban against Russia, helped install conservative male power which demonized women. On top of that, the US then invades Afghanistan which killed off many of the women as well as their children and bombed them into the stone ages. War is much more devastating than high fertility rates.)
2. How many people can the earth hold? If population by itself is to blame for the pollution and destruction of the earth's environment, then that would mean that each person contributes equally to the destruction. however, as Sach's wrote in the previous chapter - 1st world countries, especially America - and the rich within America are disproportionately destroying the earth. logic would follow, that rich American women should stop having children - because her child pollutes as much as about 100 African children (if not more). not to mention that child will live twice as long - meaning that if we calculate the destruction that "paul" has - living to 78 years old as compared with "mandella" who lived to be 46, that is twice as much time to pollute. meaning paul pollutes in his lifetime as much as 200 african children. This of course does not even take into account the likely hood mandella lives to be 46 rather than 5. Point is, the sheer amount of time those that are destroying the earth have is far greater. Not to mention that 1st world countries' fertility rates are actually increasing! but this causes no alarm bells.

The critique that Sachs does not address is (which he even mentions, pretending that he will address) is that the problem is not population, but about living sustainably. For example, imagine if the earth held 11 billion people rather than the 6.7 we currently have. The only reason a large population is bad - is because we are too destructive. Because even when we had 3.5 billion in the 1950's this was the start of the worst environmental destruction in earth's history. Mostly through large polluters like coal production, steel mills, and deforestation. So large populations don't destroy the earth - single people do. So imagine if we were less destructive at 11 than at 6.7, then logically there would be no problem. But yet Sachs creates the goal of 'stabilizing at 8 billion' because 'we cannot continue the current path we are on'. Again, the path he refers to is the complete destruction of our environment. At 6.7 billion we are very wasteful. Do we need to fix shit? yes. get rid of coal. get rid of open pit mining. stop oil drilling. This obsession with 3rd world women's motherhood choices creates fear and will not solve the real problem. SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES.