Many women of color have been sexually sterilized in the US over the past 70 years. A eugenics movement was created in the 1870s by Malthusianists and White nativist Protestants which led to the adoption of eugenics laws as part of national and state policy. 45,000 Americans were sterilized over the period 1907-45 under these laws. For example, Indiana and 30 other states legislated the compulsory sterilization of those deemed to be mentally deficient, those with certain types of mental illnesses, epileptics, sexual perverts, and criminals. The US Supreme Court in 1927 upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization for the "feeble-minded", after which 25,000 such sterilization operations took place during the 1930s. Other abuses of the surgical sterilization of women dating through the late 1980s are described and are associated with threats of losing one's welfare benefits,m out-of-compliance consent forms for sterilization, and federal government financial support for sterilizations and not abortion. The unwritten policy in most major teaching hospitals in New York city to perform elective hysterectomies on poor Black and Puerto Rican women with minimal indications in order to train residents; use of the Dalkon Shield IUD in the US before it was eventually banned; Depo-Provera and its link to cancer; and the potentially misused Norplant are also described as practices and phenomena which have subjected many women of color to de facto sterilization.
This overview of the environmental impact of population growth indicates that farm land in developing countries increased by 0.6% annually between 1961 and 1985 despite the impact of technology, which reduced land area needs by 2.6% annually. Population growth of 2.3% annually and growth in consumption of agricultural products of 0.9% annually were push factors for expanding farm land. In developing countries, the growth of population accounted for 72% of the increase in farm land area and 69% of the growth in livestock numbers. In contrast, population growth in developed countries accounted for only a 25% increase in air pollutants between 1970 and 1988; overconsumption accounted for the rest of the increase. Population growth in developed countries accounted for 40% of the increase during 1960-88 in the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for global warming. Studies by the UN Food and Agriculture Association and the UN Population Fund found a close correlation between deforestation and the loss of wildlife habitat and population density. The approach used by Barry Commoner and Paul Ehrlich was to multiply population by consumption per person by the impact per unit of consumption (technology). This formula yields a measure of the link between population growth and the impact on the environment. The general understanding, regardless of methods, is that population growth is a key factor in satisfying basic needs such as food or energy. Population growth is of lesser concern in countries with slow population growth or where consumption and technology are changing rapidly.
Some women strongly believe that political power is behind maintaining the status quo and that politicians refuse to admit that poverty and environmental damage may be caused by other factors, or factors in addition to, rapid population growth. These views are strongly expressed at the Seventh International Women's and Health Meeting in September, 1993 in Uganda. The meeting is under the sponsorship of the Women's Global Network for reproductive rights in Amsterdam. This is the first time in about 20 years that the meeting site is in Africa. The conference provides an opportunity for women of color to voice their fears and opinions. The Tanzanian Media Women's Association member Ananilea Nkya argues that the population is not the only cause, and that the needs of the many can be satisfied if resources are distributed more equitably. Many women think that environmentalists and wealthy countries are concerned about population pressure because there are too many people of color and too many poor people of color. A racist and elitist posture is behind the population pressure view. A few brave people dare to suggest that the world can not sustain an unlimited number of people, which intensifies arguments. One extremist view is that contraceptive technology harms women, and that inadequate health care systems compromise women's health. Many are concerned that oppressive sterilization policies, which are supported by governments, are an explosive issue. Environmentalists respond that critics are uninformed, unrealistic, and naive. Important issues are lost in the debate, such as that fact that most women recognize that smaller families improve chances for a higher quality of life. Coercion is feared by women of color, and women do not involve themselves in the formulation of policy. Women support choice and services, which allow women to make decisions for themselves. Black family size is lower in the US because of the opportunities for education and jobs. Overconsumption of the few is the most important issue.
Outreproducing other members of your population is the very basis of natural selection and is the driving force in the evolutionary process, however against taboo discussing over population must be discarded in order to avoid millions of people prematurely dying of hunger and disease and to maintain an environmental balance. The public mentality must be of awareness, humane action, and success in lowering population below the death rate in a very short time. The failure to do so provides fertile ground for warfare, environmental degradation, poverty, racism, religious prejudice, or sexism. America and other rich nations will experience more frequent droughts, damaged crops and famines, dying forests, smog, international conflicts, epidemics, gridlock, drugs, and crime. The authors describe the nature of the population problem and the problem of inaction in dealing with population growth. We swerve within seconds, when confronted with a car in our path, we are outraged at the Alaska oil spill for a few months, yet there is no perception of the danger of a world population growth of 7% in 4 years. Most of the world's population doubt that there are compelling reasons to halt population growth. There are dramatic ways to represent this growth and examples are given. A world population of 10 billion is just around the corner. The environmental problems looming ahead are far greater than anything confronted in the 1960s. Global warming, which leads to droughts and crop failures, and flooding, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, vulnerability to epidemics, and exhaustion of soils and groundwater are all related to population growth. Nature will solve the population problem if people do not choose birth control. Those people preventing population control are unaware that early death from widespread famines or epidemics will solve the problem. Scientists belonging to the Club of Earth in 1988 and participating in the international scientific forum, Global Change, in 1989, are aware of population growth's contribution to catastrophe. Media coverage is weak, but major attention is focused on Pope Paul's antibirth-control encyclicals which are an important barrier to solutions. Theoretical positions about the potential availability of food for 40 billion belies the current realities of maldistribution and the management issues in redistribution of foods.
In a speech given by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt to the International Forum on Population in the 21st Century, the suggested mandate for international and regional organizations was to create the equivalent of a security council on global environment and population concerns. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director of the US Population Fund, stated that the present decisions will affect the future of humanity and life on Earth. Effective decision-making in the next 10 years in crucial. There must be integrated planning on a national and international level. A global population increase of 250,000 persons/day or 90 million/year adds to the sharing of the earth and its resources. 75% of Latin America, 42% of Africa, and 37% of Asia will become urbanized. Urban air pollution in developing countries is very high. Expectations of growth, even with fertility decline, are another 3 billion by 2025 and 14 billion by 2100. Growth is occurring in countries where governments are unable to deal with the resource and environmental consequences. Growth rates are uneven, with developed countries increasing 5.2% while developing countries increase 25%. The global underclass of poverty is expected to reach 1 billion by 2000. Environmental destruction occurs due to 1) the bottom billion poorest people overexploiting the environment for food and a livelihood and 2) the top billion richest people indirectly causing distraction through consumer preferences. 15 million acres of prime agricultural land are lost every year. Decertification threatens 33% of the land surface. 25 million acres/year of rain forest are being destroyed. Several million species will be extinct. The highest growth rates are in Africa and the Middle East, where children (6-8/woman) are seen as assets, not liabilities. Lack of access to family planning (FP) and health services is a critical issue for women with unmet needs and a desire for fewer children. FP will be brought to the attention of policymakers and national planners at international meetings. Ambitious goals to keep population at 6.2 billion in 2000 and 10.5 billion by 2100 are to increase contraception users to 535 million from 326 million, to increase spending to 9 billion US dollars from 3.5 billion, to improve the status of women, to guarantee the right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children, to increase national population programs, to promote community participation and youth involvement, to ensure the UN development strategy and the 1992 Conference on the Environment and the 1994 UN Population Meeting includes the results of this meeting, and to adopt integrated population, environment, and natural resource management policies.
