Page 4

Update item information
Title Sex and consequences: world population growth vs. reproductive rights?
Subject Birth control--Moral and ethical aspects; Population policy; Contraception
Description The 54th Annual Frederick Reynolds Lecture
Creator Battin, M. Pabst
Publisher Division of Continuing Education, University of Utah
Date 1994-05-25
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,830
Source HQ766.2 B38 1994
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Sex and consequences," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6b85633
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-08-04
ID 320093
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 4
Description sian theory, it dies off, either partially or completely, and either recovers slowly, adapts sufficiently to change its environmental needs, or becomes extinct. For most species that undergo rapid expansion, population growth is limited by periodic episodes of starvation, epidemics of disease exacerbated by the poor nutritional status of the population, or other similar phenomena. The rule is ironclad: excessive growth brings about dramatic, involuntary population loss. The human population now stands at 5.7 billion; at its current rate of growth, at which it doubles every 40 years or so, it will rise to 12.5 billion by 2050. Unchecked and proceeding at the same rate of growth, it would then reach 25 billion before the end of the coming centuryâ€"when our grandchildren or children are still aliveâ€"and then 50,100,200 billion every additional four years. But, of course, this would be impossible, since the food production, natural resources, and waste-disposal capacities of the earth cannot possibly support such an increase. If 200 billion seems barely possible, wait just 40 years; the number would be 400 billion. Malthus himself did not advocate "population control" programs; he thought moral restraint might serve as some check, but, a pessimist, he also assumed that the human population, like any overproducing animal species, would go through cycles of expansion and starvation. However, his name has been lent to a wide range of population theorists who hold that if voluntary individual restraint in reproduction cannot be counted onâ€"as Malthus himself believed it could notâ€"population growth controls must be imposed. These theorists are now often called the neoMalthusians. Reproductive Rights. Meanwhile, criticsâ€"especially the more radical feminist criticsâ€"have begun to examine the nature of the programs designed to control population growth. Controlling population growth has meant controlling people, they point out, and has in particular meant controlling women. Population control programs, they insist, are designed largely by men in the first- ...4...
Format application/pdf
Identifier 005-RNLT-BattinMP_Page 4.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Sex & consequences : world population growth vs. reproductive rights? by Margaret P. Battin.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320069
Reference URL