World Population Awareness

Videos, Media

July 29, 2015

Videos, Media

Plan B Summary Presentation

2010

Power Point or PDF from Earth Policy Institute doclink

Chris Martenson's Crash Course

March 2011

The 'Crash' - Economics, Social & Environment (20 parts) doclink

Ch 18: Economics & Population

March 2011

Economics and Population from Chris Martenson's Crash Course doclink

Saving Lives with Family Planning

March 2011




The link in the headline bypasses an ad. doclink

Conservation Through Having Smaller Families

Simply explained in a cartoon booklet: global economics, ecology, population, and family planning. doclink

Healthy Lives, Healthy Futures

2010, CEDPA

Listen to the voices of women on the frontline of the fight to make pregnancy and childbirth safer for women around the world. These leaders in reproductive health share their views on why countries should invest in family planning and reproductive health programs for the health and well-being of women, families and communities. Sadly, one woman dies needlessly in pregnancy or childbirth every minute of every day, and six million more suffer injury, illness or disability. But investments in reproductive health programs have saved lives and delivered real results. In Mexico, the infant mortality rate fell by 70% between 1970 and 2005, as the use of modern contraceptives nearly doubled. Similar results have been seen in Bangladesh, Egypt, Thailand, and elsewhere. doclink

Videos, Media

Videos, Media

Videos, Media

Videos, Media

Videos, Media

Videos, Media

Beyond Malthus: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem

September 1998, World Watch Institute

Worldwatch Paper 143 by Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, Brian Halweil. The
unprecedented surge in population,
combined with rising individual consumption, is pushing our claims on
the planet beyond its natural limits. doclink

No Room for Nature

January 2001, William C. Gladish, 2001 All Rights Reserved

No Room for Nature

by William C. Gladish, 2001 All Rights Reserved Where did the forest go daddy?
Where did the warblers go mommy?
We don't know honey
Six billion and growing---no room for nature
More homes, cars, planes, and ships
Carnage along the road, in the air, and on the sea
More toxins and congestion to endure
Why must this be---can we not see
More CO2 and the days are getting warmer
Ice caps melting---coral reefs dying
Politicians turn away and count their contributions
Where did the forest go daddy?
Where did the warblers go mommy?
We don't know honey
Six billion and growing---no room for nature
The garden is God's enduring inspiration and teacher
"Fill the Earth and subdue it"---accomplished three times over
"Take care of it"---killing thousands of species a year
Our life-support system
People say, my children are smarter and must be born
Yet, the smart people have caused the most harm
Breeding wars erupt---adoption and other nurturing alternatives ignored
Where did the forest go daddy?
Where did the warblers go mommy?
We don't know honey
Six billion and growing---no room for nature
More technology, economic expansion, and war to save us
Living on a finite planet
Ignorance, arrogance, and apathy
Why must this be---can we not see
Where did the animals go papa?
Where did the butterflies go mama?
We don't know honey
Six billion and growing---no room for nature
Six billion and growing---no room for nature
doclink

Super World Population Clock

December 8, 2013, poodwaddle

Click on the link in the headline to see this super set of clocks showing population globally as well as by region and also many other statistic odometers. doclink

The Economics of Birth Control

November 14, 2013, Population Action International

Spending $1 and getting $4 back sounds like a good deal, doesn't it? Well for every $1 we invest in family planning, we save $4 in other areas like education, public health, and water and sanitation.

It's time to cash in on this deal, and invest in family planning worldwide. When women are able to plan their pregnancies, they live longer, they have smaller families, and they're better able to participate in the workforce. In fact, women who have access to contraception typically make 40% more than those without access - and that economic success is good for the whole country.

doclink

Investing in Women and Girls: Carrying the Weight of a Global Crisis

March 23, 2012, Media Planet

Empowering women and girls around the world to take part in global decision-making is the first step toward reaching a new standard of human and global development. http to see a beautiful, colorful supplement published in USA Today. doclink

Are You in the Know About Contraception, Pregnancy, Abortion and Teens?

January 31, 2012, Guttmacher Institute

The Guttmacher Institute has launched "Are you IN THE KNOW?", a new set of resources designed to inform a broad range of audiences to increase public awareness about sexual and reproductive health issues in a simple, compelling and fun format.

Are you IN THE KNOW? comprises a Web site, a mobile-friendly quiz, a vibrant set of flash cards and a booklet that lay out the top questions and answers on contraception, pregnancy, abortion and teens. Visit the Web site -http://www.guttmacher.org/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=36 - to browse the set of 110 questions and answers that provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate research available.

With your smart phone, check out the Are you IN THE KNOW? mobile-friendly Web site - http://www.guttmacher.org/mobile/in-the-know/ - the first of its kind for the Institute: By visiting the mobile site, you can take a fun quiz or browse the top 40 questions and answers by subject and access references for each answer, all from wherever you may be.

In addition to these helpful online resources, we have also created a new set of flash cards containing the 20 most frequently asked questions and answers - http://www.guttmacher.org/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=36 The flashcards utilize infographics and visual aids to better elucidate and enhance the science-based answers behind them. doclink

Vallentyne was Right: Part 2 - History of the Population Movement

January 2, 2012, Inter-Research Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP)

by William N. Ryerson, Population Institute and Population Media Center

The failure of political leaders to address population and consumption issues over the last half century has generally not been the result of lack of access to information about the problem. Indeed, there have been a series of high-level warnings to global leaders that many have heard but have chosen to ignore, hoping to duck the controversy or extend the profits of population growth realized by a few business leaders who were contributors to their political campaigns. Here is a sampling of the warnings given to American leaders and to the world.

(1) The work of Paul and Anne Ehrlich, including The Population Bomb

In 1968, the Sierra Club and Ballantine Books published The Population Bomb, which was a joint effort of Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich (Ehrlich 1968). It became an instant bestseller. Combined with speeches given by Paul Ehrlich all over the USA and extensive media interviews (including more than 20 interviews on the Tonight Show with Johnny Car- son), the 'Bomb' was responsible for launching the modern population movement and for making population a central focus of the first Earth Day in 1970.

Ehrlich, Yale biologist Charles Remington, and Connecticut attorney Dick Bowers founded Zero Population Growth (ZPG) following a talk Ehrlich gave at Yale in 1968. The organization (now called Population Connection) grew at its height to 60000 members and 600 chapters. In the mid-1980s the national board of ZPG decided it did not want to advocate for lower immigration levels and so gave up advocacy for US population stabilization. The board of the California chapter dissented, however, and split off to form Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), for which Stuart Hurlbert has served as board secretary since 2001.

The Ehrlichs' book was attacked when it was published and has regularly been ridiculed since that time. However, the warnings it contained were all couched in hedged terms common to scientific authors, indicating that the possible outcomes of overpopulation were not so much firm predictions as they were likely to occur if population growth remained at 1968 levels. The alarm raised helped to move the US government and other donor countries to invest large sums in making family planning services available around the world, which led to reductions in fertility rates and slowed the growth of world population. At the same time, the Green Revolution of the 1970s led to dramatic increases in grain production in countries like India and China, averting the immediate threat of massive starvation. However, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Borlaug stated clearly that the Green Revolution he led would only buy the world community 30 yr in which to stop the 'population monster' or the developing world would face even greater famines than the one he had helped to avert.

In retrospect, the Ehrlichs believe The Population Bomb was too optimistic (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2009, Turner 2009). For while the Green Revolution averted a global catastrophe at the time, about 300 million people have died of malnutrition since then. The Green Revolution crops, depending as they do on petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers and large quantities of fresh water, face an uncertain future as all 3 of these resources become less available.

(2) Publication of The Limits to Growth

Many corporate leaders and politicians scoffed when The Limits to Growth was published (Meadows et al. 1972). A careful analysis of the trends in utilization of resources, the Club of Rome-sponsored publication gave clear evidence that humanity was on a collision course with resource exhaustion. In 2009, Dennis Meadows, one of the co-authors of the report, said that human civilization is following the projections the authors forecast in 1972 (also see Turner 2008). However, except for the scientific community, the report generated no discernable action by world leaders.

(3) President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future In July 1969, President Nixon proposed the creation of a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (CPGAF). At the time, he stated, 'One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man's response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today' (CPGAF 1972, p. 3)

In 1972, the Commission released its final report urging the country to move quickly toward population stabilization (CPGAF 1972). Headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the 'Rockefeller Commission' strongly urged that America give up its addiction to growth. While many Americans heeded the message and the fertility rate fell to replacement level within a year of the report's presentation, policy makers did not pay much attention. The President had other things on his mind, and 2 yr later, he resigned from office because of the Watergate scandal. Since that time, the US population has grown by over 100 million people, in significant part because of immigration.

The CPGAF recommended, among other things, that America act to end illegal immigration and to set legal immigration at 400000 people per year. The CPGAF determined that 'the health of our country does not depend on [population growth], nor does the vitality of business, nor the welfare of the average person.' (J. D. Rockefeller, letter to President Nixon, available at www.population-security.org/rockefeller/ 001_population_growth_and_the_american_future. htm) Since the report was issued, annual legal immigration has quadrupled, and illegal immigration has mushroomed.

In the opening paragraph of its first chapter, the CPGAF (1972) report said, In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and 'the good life' are connected with population growth. In fact, population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the popul tion growth ethic that 'more is better.' And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation's population.

Perhaps the CPAFG most widely cited recommendation read, 'Recognizing that our population cannot grow indefinitely, and appreciating the advantages of moving now toward the stabilization of population, the Commission recommends that the nation welcome and plan for a stabilized population.' The CPAFG report goes on to state, 'In short, we find no convincing economic argument for continued national population growth.'

(4) The 'Warning to Humanity' If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and we will leave a ravaged world. ...Henry Kendall

In 1992, 1700 of the world's scientists, including the majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences, signed a 'Warning to Humanity' written by the late Henry Kendall, chair of the Union of Concerned Scientists (Kendall 1992). For the full text, see www.ucsusa. org/about/1992-world-scientists.html.

The 'Warning to Humanity' stated clearly the need to stabilize population numbers and change the course of human civilization. The 'Warning' identifies a range of critical stresses on the environment, including the atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, living species, and population. Following are the highlights of the statement on population and the conclusion:

Population

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can over- whelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

Warning

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

(5) Statement by the National Academies of Sciences of 58 nations

In 1994 the scientific academies of 58 nations came together to warn that humankind must stop looking to science alone to solve problems caused by over population (Science Summit on World Population 1994). The full statement can be found at http:// dieoff.org/page75.htm. Highlights of the academies' statement follow: Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes of far reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel-wood in many parts of the world.

The earth is finite

The growth of population over the last half century was for a time matched by similar world-wide increases in utilizable resources. However, in the last decade food production from both land and sea has declined relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk, both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These are warnings that the earth is finite, and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.

But time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently needed. In our judgment, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children.

Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed. Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships. Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

Action is needed now

Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues of population, environment, and development. Scientists today have the opportunity and responsibility to mount a concerted effort to confront our human predicament. But science and technology can only provide tools and blueprints for action and social change. It is the governments and international decision-makers ... who hold the key to our future. We urge them to take incisive action now and to adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decided to act together for the benefit of future generations.

(6) The President's Council on Sustainable Development

In 1993, President Clinton established the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to advise him on sustainable development and create 'bold, new approaches to achieve our economic, environmental, and equity goals'. The Council served from 1993 to 1999. Among the recommendations of the PCSD was a move toward the stabiliza- tion of the US population (PCSD 1999).

In the 1990s, the USA was the only major industrialized country experiencing significant population growth. The PCSD (1999, Ch. 1, p. 3) report stated:

Annual growth figures of ... 1.0 percent may seem small, but they are not. Persistent 1.0 percent growth translates into a doubling time - the time it takes a population to double in size - of 70 years. This is an enormous increase when the population that is doubling is the United States, the third largest country in the world. Also, given the numeric size of the country, even apparently small percentage increases produce large increases in numbers.

The PCSD's recommendations about immigration policy included the development of comprehensive and responsible immigration and foreign policies that reduce illegal immigration and mitigate the factors that encourage immigration. The report stated (PCSD 1999 Ch. 1, p. 4):

Continued population growth in the United States, particularly on the scale envisioned by the medium and high projections, has enormous implications. Coupled with the technologies and resource consumption patterns that underlie the U.S. standard of living, population growth in America produces an environmental impact unparalleled by any other country at this time.

Continued population growth also has the potential to overwhelm efficiency and productivity gains, negating technology-based efforts to reduce U.S. environmental impact. Population growth also challenges industry's best efforts to provide new, higher quality jobs for all Americans and to improve real wages for American workers - which have been stagnant for 22 years. It similarly adds to the nation's needs to reduce poverty, improve education, and provide health care for all Americans. In short, the United States is already severely challenged by the need to provide better opportunities for millions of disadvantaged citizens, and continued population growth will exacerbate those challenges.

The PCSD's final report to the President in May 1999 added a paragraph on the desires of the American public with regard to population (PCSD 1999, Ch. 1, p. 5):

For decades, Americans have not had a desire for an ever-larger population. This is suggested by polls over the years. In 1974, 87 percent of respondents to a Roper poll said they did not wish the country had more people. A 1971 poll by the US Commission on Population Growth and the American Future found that 22 percent felt US population should be smaller than it was then, which was close to 200 million. As long ago as 1947, when U.S. population was 140 million, Gallup found that 55 percent of Americans believed the country would be 'worse off' with more people.

The PCSD (1999, Ch 1, p. 20) report concluded with a series of recommendations, the first of which read, Stabilize U.S. population as early as possible in the next century as part of similar worldwide efforts, by providing universal access to a broad range of information, services, and opportunities so that individuals may plan responsibly and voluntarily the number and spacing of their children. These include: high-quality family planning and other basic and reproductive health services; equitable educational, economic, social, and political opportunities, particularly for women; reduction of infant mortality; and the increase of male responsibility for family planning and childrearing. This goal also entails targeted actions to eradicate poverty. While fertility is the largest contributor to U.S. population growth, responsible immigration policies that respect American traditions of fairness, freedom, and asylum will also contribute to voluntary population stabilization in the United States.

Of course, looking forward to 2050, immigration and births to immigrants are expected to exceed natural increase by 4-fold as a driver of US population growth, as projected by the Pew Hispanic Center (Passel & Cohn 2008). doclink

Vallentyne was Right: Achieving Sustainability Requires Accounting for All Relevant Factors

January 2, 2012

by William N. Ryerson, Population Institute and Population Media Center

(Editor's note: I have broken this article into three parts. Parts 2 (History of the Population Movement) and 3 (Things are Getting Worse) will be done at a later time.

Population has waxed and waned as an issue of public consciousness and action by policymakers. The issue is on the ascendancy again in part because of climate change and food crises caused by escalating food prices, the energy crisis and growing shortages of fresh water. In the face of these problems, attempts of some governments to stimulate higher birth rates, over concern with aging populations, are misplaced and counterproductive. Vallentyne's long-neglected 'demotechnic index' holds new promise for considering both population numbers and consumption rates when evaluating the impact of humans on the environment. Its appearance in publication now is all the more important because of the failure of political leaders to act on the numerous expert warnings issued over several decades regarding the impact of human population growth and expanding utilization of resources. Thus, the world community needs to act urgently to utilize the demotechnic index of Jack Vallentyne to look holistically at ways to achieve a sustainable society.

(Editor's note: The demotechnic index is simply the ratio of technological energy consumption to the energy required for physiological subsistence alone, which is estimated to be 3.57 gigajoules per capita year. Canadians and Americans have huge demothechnic indices, 118 and 91 respectively, meaninng that each North American uses about one hundred times more energy than required for subsistence alone.)

Jack Vallentyne originally presented his demotechnic index at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. It is an important contribution to the cause of achieving global sustainability.

Indeed, achieving global sustainability has been a central concern of many ecologists and other scientists during the last 50 years. The pillars of sustainability - population, consumption, waste patterns, and technology - have waxed and waned in the public consciousness. In the 1970s, population was often seen as the central issue, but Jack Vallentyne also called on scientists to recognize the importance of consumption. His work today calls on the global community not to forget the population factor and to take a balanced approach in looking at all relevant factors that will ultimately determine whether human civilization is sustainable over many more millennia or is a short-term experiment gone awry.

Indeed, the number of people on the planet would not matter if we were ethereal beings. Our economic activity, i.e. our consumption of resources and our production of wastes, makes our numbers matter.

In the 1970s, population was a visible issue. The concern with the number of humans focused on developing countries in part because of the evidence that large family size was a leading cause of poverty and thus that rapid population growth would prevent economic development. Environmental concerns centered on deforestation and loss of the biodiversity found in many developing countries.

Because developed countries had the resources to address pollution problems and since most had undertaken significant pollution abatement efforts starting in the 1960s, there was relatively little concern in the 1970s about population growth in developed countries. In part, this was the case because many developed countries had achieved very low fertility rates. Migration from developing to developed countries was relatively small as a contributor to population growth of the latter and was seen by many as having zero net environmental impact. In addition, since the goal of most societies was, first and foremost, economic growth, migration was often viewed as an unmitigated positive because of the impact it had on the economic status of migrants and, more broadly, on corporate profits.

Along the way, population became taboo. President Reagan declared that population was, at worst, a neutral factor. That position, plus the backlash against legalized abortion in the United States, made concern with population issues politically incorrect. By the time of the second world population conference in Mexico City in 1994, discussion of population had all but disappeared from consideration by those working in the environmental sustainability arena.

More recently, concern about climate change, combined with the prospect of peak oil and fresh water shortages, has led some environmentalists to conclude that the only environmental concern of merit was high (read 'excessive') consumption and waste by developed countries. Reducing the ecological footprint of individuals in developed countries, but not the number of footprints, became a new mantra that still dominates the materials produced by many environmental organizations. This concern was expressed in ways that steered clear of two important sustainability factors: population growth and economic growth. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo reinforced the belief that concern with population per se could lead to loss of a rights-based approach to women's reproductive health.

In the last few years, the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont, the Institute for Sustainable Solutions at Portland State University, and other groups have attempted to draw the public's attention to the fact that resource limitations must lead to a state of non-growth of the global economy, even as developing countries struggle to increase per capita incomes. Selling the idea of global economic stagnation is certainly an uphill battle, but these organizations are trying to force those who lament 'overconsumption' to look at the drivers of such consumption found within economic systems.

At the same time, the food crises of 2008 and 2011 have helped to spark a resurgence of interest in the population factor. The IPAT (impact = population × affluence × technology) formula (Ehrlich & Holdren 1972) and the ecological footprint concept have continued to point to the fact that population, consumption (or affluence), and technology are all factors in environmental impact and that omitting any one from consideration is a recipe for failing to take the steps necessary to achieve national or global sustainability.

Even so, despite growing evidence of global overshoot, many developed countries have acted as if there were no limits to growth of numbers or economic activity, offering financial incentives to people to have babies and increasing flows of immigration while simultaneously rationing use of water or other resources because of growing shortages, urging employers to stagger working hours because of worsening traffic jams, and taking extraordinary steps to obtain increasingly scarce, risky, and expensive energy resources.

Indeed, many economists try to scare the public in developed countries into thinking that aging populations are a problem. They describe how aging will make a nation's populace less innovative and vibrant. They wring their collective hands over the impact on the working population of having to care for so many retirees. Ultimately, they urge incentives for population growth, both to increase the birth rate and net immigration. These arguments are based on a view of the future that is, in reality, a Ponzi scheme. Endless growth of the population is impossible, and additional young people and working age immigrants will grow older and need support.

In fact, incentive programs like those in Australia, France, and Germany that rely on ever-increasing numbers of people to support the elderly or to maintain economic welfare, if they are successful, will only make the 'dependency ratio' worse by adding babies (who are 100% dependent) to the burden on the working population. Many of the elderly in most developed countries have savings that make them able to live independently for many years of retirement. More important, raising retirement ages to reflect greater longevity and working capability of the elderly and making adjustments to pension program formulas are a much faster fix for the pension burden than trying to add more children, who likely won't become productive economically for a couple of decades.

In short, we need to plan for non-growing and probably shrinking populations and not try to postpone the day when those goals are achieved. Otherwise, we face serious environmental and social problems. Indeed, if we have a climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis, a water crisis, an energy crisis, and a food crisis, no country should be trying to stimulate higher birth rates.

Vallentyne to the rescue

The demotechnic index of Vallentyne is a useful contribution to the field of sustainability because it helps one to focus on the fact that both numbers of people and their economic activities are important factors in determining whether a society can achieve sustainability. It allows quantification via energy use rather than the less easily quantified concepts of affluence, technology, and consumption. His D-index is a useful improvement on the IPAT formula.

By the 1990 D-index values presented by Mata et al. (2012), we find that the USA is the most planet-damaging country and Canada is close behind India as the sixth and fifth most damaging, respectively, when population numbers are adjusted by energy consumption.

The need to act on Vallentyne's D-index for policy purposes

The scientific evidence is clear. Humanity has a serious and complex problem. It is not just a problem of population, nor of consumption, nor of climate change, nor of peak oil, nor of fresh water scarcity, nor of food insecurity, nor of loss of biodiversity in the oceans and on land. It is all of these. Indeed, mankind's problem is that human activity has out- grown the capacity of the planet to provide the necessary resources in a sustainable way. We are drawing down capital instead of living on the interest generated by renewable resources, and we have built much of modern civilization on the basis of non- renewable resources. We now need to take steps to reduce human demands on the biosphere to sustainable levels. Vallentyne's D-index is a key tool to demonstrate the extent to which each nation must take immediate action to achieve national and global sustainability.

Because of his untimely death, Vallentyne's work is not widely known. Through this series of papers, the authors hope to change that situation.

For the complete paper, see http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2012/12/e012p005.pdf doclink

Quick Reference Guide to Family Planning Research

August 30, 2010, Global Health Council

The Research Utilization team at FHI announces the completion of the 2010 Quick Reference Guide (QRG) to Family Planning Research.

1. Preventing Unintended Pregnancies: A Component for the Prevention of Mother to-Child Transmission of HIV 2. The Impact of Integrating Family Planning into HIV/AIDS Services Intrauterine Devices 3. Emergency Contraceptive Pills 4. Vasectomy 5. Male Condoms 6. Female Condoms 7. Standard Days Method 8. Eligibility Screening and Provider Checklists Community-Based Services and Distribution 9. Youth (Ages 10-24) 10. Implants 11. Contraceptive Continuation 12. Male Circumcision and HIV 13. Contraceptive Counseling and Job Aids 14. Healthy Timing and Spacing of Pregnancies 15. Postpartum Family Planning

Click on the headline for the guide. doclink

Where There Is No Doctor

January 24, 2005, healthwrights.org

This printable online handbook has been written primarily for those who live far from doctors. It has been written in the belief that: Health care is not only everyone's right, but everyone's responsibility. Ordinary people provided with information can prevent and treat most common health problems in their own homes-earlier,cheaper, and often better than can doctors. Basic health care should not be delivered, but encouraged. doclink

'The Empty Ocean': Invisible Extinctions - Book Review

May 25, 2003, New York Times*

Sent: 14 Jun 2003 'The Empty Ocean': Invisible Extinctions - Book Review http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/books/review/25CLARKET.html?pagewanted=print&position= May 25, 2003 'The Empty Ocean': Invisible Extinctions By THURSTON CLARKE THE EMPTY OCEAN Plundering the World's Marine Life. Written and illustrated by Richard Ellis. 367 pp. Washington: Island Press/Shearwater Books. $26. he ghosts of vanquished animals still haunt their for... doclink

Fruitful Extinction

November 2002, Ralph Woodgate

This electronic book by Ralph Woodgate explains the unsustainability of the current rate of population growth and how the world, including the U.S. is already unsustainable. The last chapter gives a scenario for the future. Ralph Woodgate is one of WOA!!s top volunteers - writing many of the summarizations in this News Digest. doclink