Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:21, 28 November 2006

Welcome!

Hello Lyrl, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Gender Reproduction

I added this to hopefully answer any questions you have. Thanks for the quick reply. (UKPhoenix79 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

Coitus Interuptus

I don't understand why you deleted my addition of the natural muscular contraction during ejaculation. Thank you Abc85 09:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

your recent edit

I wanted to talk with you about your recent edit to the emergency contraception article - which I don't really understand. There were quite a few sources stated before, and the text seemed to be more informative in some ways (I'm not saying it is perfect however)...so why scrap the whole lot and make a brand new version with no sources? Also the bit about it "sometimes" working as an abortifacient, if pregnancy is defined as happening at the moment of conception, seems to me to be untrue. It would ALWAYS be an abortifacient if it gets rid of a fertilised egg, not so? Can you explain to me how I am wrong? Chooserr 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl, thanks for explaining LAM. I thought it said somewhere on the EC page (or the pregnancy dispute page) that it causes the abortion of fertilised eggs or something. Chooserr 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

I replied on the talk page. savidan 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Invitation to Birth control

Thank you for your invitation to edit the birth control article. I understand your enthusiasm in trying to improve the article, as the Japanese version of the article was featured recently on ja. After reading through the Japanese article and its talk page, I cannot fathom why the Japanese community decided to feature that article... and the initial and major contributor for the Japanese article, Famsis, has been kicked off ja. Actually, I think the English version of the article is far more useful to readers with its far and wide subjects and multiple links. Not much is missing from en that ja could add. --Emana 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

editing Mirena

hi lyrl,

i don't know how to add notes to edit in the edit history--sorry if that has cause any annoyance. Is there an explanation for the "technically challenged" on how to do this? :-)

c

Fertility Table

I think what u r looking for is a Fertility, and it could look like a Life Table in construction. Perhaps you ought to have a separate page for it. It doesnt belong with the Life Table or Life contingencies. If we had insurance on it, it would be a perfect fit.

the table i envision might look something like the following:

Column A = number of days using a method. something suitable. Column B = method A; e.g. using a condom column C = method B; maybe the rhythm method; this would have a tricky distribution each month. column D = method C; maybe using the pill

So using each method over time, like advancing age in a life table, increases the probably of conception.

in addition; one needs a third dimension, the frequecny of sexual on a daily basis.

hope this helps.

joe 01:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi: i got company up to my eyeballs; so i will not be able to get back to you until tomorrow nite. joe 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Collaboration

You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Pope John Paul II was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute!

--Briancua 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

possibly pages to watch/review

There has been some major work done on Mifepristone and Misoprostol, and most for the better. I was wondering, if you had some time, if you wouldn't mind reviewing these recent edits and possibly contributing to make these articles even better! You already put in a lot of hard work on the BC articles, so I wanted to tell you to keep up the good work and possibly to check out these two pages. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Sexual Health

I saw your message on Wikibooks:Sexual Health, and moved over the previous contents of the talk page to the new location. This move didn't preserve the page history, unfortunately, but with only two edits, I don't think it's a big loss. I also replaced the misspelled page and the talk page with redirects, so people should get to where they are going from any links that have already been created.

For future reference, by the way, it is much faster to contact me directly on my wikibooks talk page, because I will be able to respond more quickly to your messages. I'm also a b-crat at wikibooks, so I can take care of any admin-related help you need as well.

Also, I added alot of material to this book, but it was all added from memory, and there may be some errors. We can go back and fix any obvious mistakes of course, but the book looks much better with some content. I've added a few pictures as well, but the book could certainly use more pictures. Do you think that we should allow actual photographs of genitals in this book, or should we stick to the drawings that are there currently? I think if we put up some kind of warning, photographs should be alright. --Wknight8111 (Whiteknight) 15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to put comments on the talk pages of the book chapters, or on my talk page, which ever suits you best. I have included all those pages on my watchlist, so i will be notified whenever you leave a comment. You're right, if we are going to include photos, we will want to show a collection, to demonstrate that "normal" has many different shapes. I worry, however, that have a large number of nude photographs would qualify our book to be labled "Wikipornia", as some people have taken to calling it. I don't want to be obscene. I wish I had my old sex-ed textbook, to see what kinds of pictures it had. --User:Wknight8111 (WB:Whiteknight) 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

dumb question

sorry to ask you such a dumb question, but i noticed you have contributed to male contraceptives also so i thought you might be interested. i added a footnote, but it seems there is no footnote section created. can you maybe teach me how to do that? (i have more papaya studies i am excited to add...) Cindery 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for help. Cindery 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

hi, it's me with another pesky question from the technologically-impaired-dept...i tried to ask someone else first, but now i am embarassed because he seems to think i know what a deeplinked url is... no url at all shows up when i download/click on that pdf...maybe it is just not possible/i should give up and link to sisterzeus site? or maybe there is something simple i just don't know...(also, all edits to menstrual extraction welcome. it needs work/more critical eyes). pls do not worry about either one if you are busy. thanks, Cindery 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By "deeplinked url", he just meant the web address of the pdf. What I did was open the pdf, then copy the web address from the address bar. Sometimes in websites with frames, this address will not show up in the address bar. To link to sites like that, you have to use your mouse to hover over the link, and read the "deeplinked url" from the bottom left-hand corner of your browser.

I hope that made some sense. Let me know if it didn't. Lyrl _Contribs 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks, lyrl! (i use a laptop/no mouse, so i probably would never have never figured it out...plus, browser probs lately. firefox won't load/had to revert to lame outdated version of explorer...i am going to the apple store to visit the geniuses at the "genius bar" to reinstall firefox. i bet that is the real problem--with firefox i am pretty sure "deeplinked urls" showed up, i just didn't notice. because i would not know a deeplinked url if one bit me :-) Cindery 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome templates

Howdy, I saw the note you left for Boomshanker (talk • contribs) on his/her talk page. Welcoming new users is by no means restricted to admins; anyone can do it. I usually use {{welcome}} --~~~~, although there are a wide range of welcome messages to be found at Misplaced Pages:Welcome templates. I have been thinking it would be useful to develop one for the issue with Bookshanker--a probably well-meaning user who thinks adverts are par for the course on Misplaced Pages. We have {{spam}}, but that seems too harsh at times. If you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate hearing them... Anyhow, feel free to use any of the welcome templates to welcome new users. About five percent of the itme, they will contact you with a question about editing or Misplaced Pages, which is fun (if you don't know, just add it to one of the help desks or village pump pages, as needed). Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if I can help with anything or if you have any questions. Thanks for all the hard work! --TeaDrinker 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried my hand at a welcome template for people inserting advertising. Currently it is at User:TeaDrinker/Sandbox; I am curious if you have any comments. (It is based in large measure on {{welcomepov}}.) Thanks, --TeaDrinker 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your proposed welcome template - it is much less confrontational than the "welcomepov" one, and seems appropriate for situations like I encountered.

Thank you also for the information on welcome templates - it's not something I had come across before. Lyrl _Contribs 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and created it at Template:welcomespam. Hopefully it can be shaped into something useful. --TeaDrinker 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

In the Misplaced Pages tradition, I give you the barnstar of diligence for all your hard work editing with meticulous attention to detail in contraception-related topics.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For extraordinary attention to detail and superb editing on contraception-related topics. Awarded by TeaDrinker 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Richly deserved, good edit on Diaphragm (contraceptive) today. The above award both beats me to it :-( and better phrases what I had come here to award you myself :-) Yours David Ruben 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry

that's the second time today my browser has blanked something huge on a minor edit--unintentional; my apologies; thanks for restoring. Cindery 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Thanks for correcting my mistake on the Planned Parenthood page. I reverted my own revert by mistake. ThanksGdo01 01:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

will my dumb questions ever end?

hi, i just tried to welcome a friend for whom an admin never showed up--and i royally screwed it up: User Mumblio. i couldn't find a welcome template, so i cut and pasted from my talkpage. this half-worked. what's awful though is it now says "help me" on his page, and i can't get in to edit out my mistake--there's only a "+" button, allowing me to leave a new message...is there s way to fix this or should i ask an admin? (i saw you were probably online from my watchlist) tks, Cindery 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks (as always) for your kind help. Cindery 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Family planning

I made the category after reviewing an example at de.wp. If you feel that a certain article does not belong, be bold and simply remove it. The natural family planning article currently carries both categories, so removing either the parent or subcategory would make no big deal. GilliamJF 18:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost saves

I wish that were it--unfortunately, I'm saving, waiting for the new page to load, then quitting without carefully checking to see that the save is saved. And then I come back six hours later to find that it was not. Could be my machine; 2001 Macintoshes are not the most compatible-friendly of computers. Thanks, though. And congratulations on your Barnstar. --BCSWowbagger 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good theory. I'll have to be more careful with my edits from now on! --BCSWowbagger 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Hyphenation rules are here. Ed points out an online resource on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:23 16 October 2006 (GMT).

Regarding Christian views on contraception

I'm sorry that I'm busy trying to improve Misplaced Pages's articles and did not know that people expected me to find sources for their own additions. And I'm sorry that I was abiding by Misplaced Pages's policy. Ariedartin JECJY 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have learnt from you then. Certainly, I shouldn't simply be making edits that are easiest for me. Rather, making an effort to back up sources will help merit better results. I now agree and see what you mean. Ariedartin JECJY 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I nominate you

With your meticulous mind and impressive mastery of FA, I nominate you to start an article on "conception probabilities." (It seems there are three primary conception probability theories/methods--Tietze, Dixon, and Trussell? And perhaps "UPSI"?). I didn't know before I started researching EC that these existed, and think lots of other people must not have heard of "conception probabilities" or know that several methods exist, either... Cindery 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of FA is related to a woman determining when she is near ovulation, and I'm pretty good at that. However, my knowledge of conception probabilities is not much more extensive than this, and I've never heard of any of the different theories or methods you mentioned. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have the knowledge base to write such an article. Lyrl _Contribs 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Condom as gloves

I took the liberty of taking out the section you had marked as dubious from the condom article. I moved it to the talk page for further dicussion; you are quite right that such a use boggles the mind a bit. Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Diaphragm (contraceptive)

Pardon me if this relates to my own ignorance on the subject, but the image you just replaced again on this page doesn't appear to actually be a cervical cap... I looked up on that article and the image appears to be slightly different. Check them out:

This one is supposed to be a cervical cap:

And this one is supposed to be a diaphragm, or at least in the french article:

Now either I am right or these images are badly made, lol. If you think the latter is suitable for a diaphragm, please switch it back, it looks a lot better.

Have a nice day mate --Ludvig 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the diaphragm article, you will see that the diaphragm rests against the pubic bone. That means the dome of the diaphragm covers all the surface next to the bladder, and the anterior rim rests against the urethra. Both images show how a cervical cap fits (covering only the cervix and not the vaginal wall); the top image might be better for cavity rim caps like Oves and Prentif that adhere directly to the cervix, the bottom image better for Vimule and FemCap which adhere to the vaginal walls immediately surrounding the cervix. Neither image shows how the diaphragm covers much of the vaginal wall, or how it can apply pressure to the urethra. The diaphragm image is badly made.

I intend to draw in a correctly placed diaphragm on a better image when I have time, but until then I believe the poorer-quality image is more accurate for the diaphragm article. Lyrl _Contribs 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

overpopulation

In response to your comment on the Emergency contraception talk page about overpopulation being propaganda:

I'm assuming you are aware of the Green Revolution which dramatically increased food production and is the basis for many arguments that overpopulation is no longer a concern. And indeed, the world has experienced huge grain surpluses for many decades, and engages in wasteful practices such as raising animals exclusively on grain. There are arguments the U.S. in particular has deliberately sabatoged the agriculture of developing countries in order to have a market to dump our surplus grain as food "aid".

But realize the Haber-Bosch process was integral to the Green Revolution. The Haber process is entirely and completely dependent on natural gas. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource; the natural gas fields in North America reached maximum lifetime production levels a few years ago and I believe we will see the global peak within my lifetime (I'm 24).

The Green Revolution is also heavily dependent on pesticides derived from petroleum. And on tractors run on petroleum products. Petroleum, like natural gas, is a non-renewable resource. United States oil production peaked in 1971 and I believe the global peak will occur in the next 5-15 years.

The implications of increasingly scarce (and therefore more expensive) energy resources are far-reaching; however, I believe food is going to be the biggest one. Many people in the peak oil community believe we have greatly exceeded the carrying capacity of a world without cheap oil, and therefore billions of people are going to starve post-peak. While I personally am not such a "doomer", I do not dismiss overpopulation so lightly as to call it "propaganda". Lyrl _Contribs 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lyrl,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As you correctly point out, overpopulation is a concept which is configured in relation to resources. While I think ethanol, etc will prevent the post-green-revolution food shortage doomsday scenario, I'm not so sure we won't have one anyway after Monsanto is done registering the patents on all seed genes. :-)

But, regarding population and resources, that is the main criticism of pop orgs, really: countries with resources determine that countries with less resources are "overpopulated." Actually, since it takes 50x the resources for a first world person to live than a person in a developing country, the first world is grossly overpopulated in terms of resource consumption per person, and resources could be best conserved in terms of population if the first world drastically stopped reproducing in relation to the third world...and as long as resources are so inequitably distributed, it wouldn't matter if there were a surplus or deficiency--the third world will still lack resources in relation to population, because the problem is inequitable resource distribution, not population. The first world is outnumbered by the third world, and that's perceived as a threat, which could be very reductively summarized as: if they aren't kept desperately poor en masse, they have the numbers to rise up and demand a fair share of the world's resources. If the ratio by which they outnumber us gets bigger and bigger, they could rise up even if they are financially weak...

Cindery 22:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethanol is very nice is that it is physically possible to run a compact heat engine with renewable resources. No need to revert to huge wood-burning steam engines.

However, the fact that food is so dirt cheap we are willing to burn it (ethanol, corn burners, etc.) is a symptom of oversupply. Oversupply only exists because of inputs of non-renewable resources (natural gas for fertilizer, petroleum for pesticides/herbicides/tractors/transportation to market). When such non-renewable resources enter depletion, the food oversupply will end. When food is scarce, it will no longer make sense to burn it for fuel.

...Brazil's ethanol comes exclusively from sugarcane--not exactly a sustenance crop. As you point out, two things are true: there is currently an oversupply of food, and doomsday famines are the opinion of an extreme minority.

Actually, it's quite likely the U.S. in particular, with its "breadbasket", will continue to incenerate food in the name of maintaining our lifestyle. While the developing world starves en masse. This time, not because of political shenanigans (the current reason for malnutrition and starvation), but because there actually is not enough food.

The developing world ("Third World" is mildly controversial - see Third World) is not using resources conservatively because they are all tree huggers. They are using resources conservatively because they do not have access to resources. Those they do have access to, they overuse - see desertification#Historical and current desertification for one type of example. Developed countries also overuse "renewable" resources to the point of destruction - fishing is the prime example. Resource mismanagement is not a developing vs. developed country issue, it's a human nature issue. Also remember the trends exemplified by India and China: if the economies of developing countries improve, thus increasing their access to resources, their resource use profile approaches that of countries like the U.S. Solving the problem of inequitable distribution would not solve the problem of resource mismanagement.

..inequitable distribution is the problem--for example, we have an oversupply of food and yet people are starving. "First world uses 50x resources of third word" --I find it easier just to use shorthand vernacular when typing the terms over and over and over--is an argument made regarding the environmental impact of population. As far as resource management goes, the US could spend 200,000 on contraceptive aid to Africa and 6 million 800,000 thousand on helping Africa develop its unused natural resources---instead of 7 million on Norplant (which is what USAID spent alone in 1999) in order to assist with the "overpopulation" problem, which is not a problem with numbers of people but with insufficient resources per person.

All first world countries have birth rates below the replacement level (this is only true in the U.S. if you discount the high birth rate of immigrants). No developing country has a birth rate below the replacement level. I would say that the first world has already "dramatically stopped reproducing in relation to the third world." Or did you have something more drastic in mind (VHEMT)?

The "population bomb" has already been throughly discredited--birthrates for all countries are way down since the 70s, and population projections for dev. countries are low.

Increasing human population pushes an already strained carrying capacity of the only planet known to support human life to or beyond its limits. While not denying the "threat" perceived by some members of developed countries by the population of developing countries, there are other less prejudiced reasons for targeting developing countries for contraception distribution.

Again, you seem to have absorbed the "population bomb" alarmism, which has been discredited. Treating population only as a human-numbers problem and not also as a resources problem isn't humanitarian (or logical). As in example given re Norplant to Africa in 1999, contraceptive aid could and should be a small part of foreign aid to Africa--not the sole focus of foreign aid to Africa. (Do you realize how much more US spent on Norplant for Africa than on condoms or other healthcare for Africa during AIDS epidemic???)

• Many health problems are caused by pregnancy. Pregnany too young, pregnancy too soon after the last one. In Sub-saharan Africa, 1 out of 16 women die of pregnancy complications . Every year, tens or hundreds of thousands of women in the poorest countries develop the horrible condition of obstetric fistula. Poor maternal health means poor infant health and high infant mortality. Obviously better medical care is needed - but when funds are insufficient to provide all needed services, the best health improvements per money spent may be gained by increased contraceptive use.

That's a fundamental argument of pop-org critics--contraceptive aid should be part of healhcare aid--and the kinds of contraception being dropped on developing countries require healthcare.

• Women who are not spending all their time in childcare are better able to better their family situation. Reduced family size leads to increased education for women - if families only have enough money to send a few children to school, but have many children, they choose schooling only for boys. By many mechanisms, higher contraceptive use can enable families and societies to break the cycle of poverty.
• Because developing countries have the highest birth rates, increased contraceptive use there is going to have a much greater impact than increased contraceptive use in developed countries.

Actually, one of the developments that came out of the 1994 Cairo meeting was that the more education girls have, the fewer children they have, and feminists argued that spending more money on girls' education imrpoved life overall for women in dev. countries, ddin't just lower birthrate. Puny amounts of money are spent on this, but at least lipservice is paid to the idea. Women not spending all their time in childcare--in developing countries, children are wealth; they contribute to household work and care for their parents (in absence of Social Security, etc). One of the arguments against harmful methods of contracepion is that in developing countries, where he health impact of say, depo provera is much more severe, the incapacitation of women affects the whole family/family economy. Indian women who work in factories agitate against injectables because the health effects render them incapable of working.

There are at least two main issues you seem to have missed: 1. it's not contraception, it's the amount spent on contraception in relation to everything else 2. it's the kind of contraception--dumping cheap contraception with heinous health effects is worse for developing countries than no contraception at all

I oppose any instances of coerced contraception. But I do believe both education about and access to contraception is a fundamental human right. I think one should make a distinction between being opposed to abuses of international pro-contraception organizations (e.g. coercion), and being opposed to everything the pro-contraception movement does. Right now you're coming across to me as being against the existence of every international contraceptive program, which is a position I strongly disagree with. Lyrl _Contribs 03:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's no need to spend 7 million dollars on Norplant (after it had known serious side effects in affluent people with healthcare access) in a country with a troubled population-to-resources ratio-- and far less on everything else. Cindery 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a brief summary of major points in recent population criticism, which was widely circulated in press: I also recommend Betsy Hartmann's book, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control Cindery 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also advise reading criticism of the Green Revolution--many considered it a failure/it was never based on sustainable agriculture, but the surpluses it produced could have been produced by sustainable agriculture instead/ the surpluses resulted in debt for developing countries which caused hunger and starvation--but profit for American corps/ WHO's policy on Green was written by Cargill/etc. Here is recent paper from Foodfirst on the idea of having a second Green Rev (supported by American seed fertilizer companies) for Africa: Cindery 11:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Brazilian ethanol and agricultural impact of peak oil

First, Brazil's ethanol production cannot be replicated in non-tropical countries - the high rainfall levels and year-round growing season are not found in most of the world. Even if the U.S. had such a climate over a significant portion of its land, per-capita gasoline consumption in the United States would have to drop dramatically to be supported by such a program. Anyone who thinks U.S. suburban commuter life is going to be saved by ethanol is seriously misinformed.

Second, ethanol only addresses the liquid fuels aspect of increasing scarcity of oil. It does not address the increasing scarcity of petroleum-based pesticides and natural gas-derived fertilizer, and the impact this will have on world food production.

Use of "high-yield" crops with lots of fertilizer and irrigation results in higher outputs than any other system. Returning to locally adapted crops increases yield in situations with less available fertilizer and less available irrigation - but the total output is still lower than what farmers are currently doing.

Lowered yields in countries like the U.S. and India may actually help some farmers in developing countries because there will not be an international surplus to dump on the market and artificially lower prices. While this is great for long-term sustainability, in the short-term there will be huge disruptions as consumers are forced to pay realistic amounts of money for food.

In 1955, food cost was one-third of the average U.S. family's expenses . It is much lower today, around 13% . When food prices rise to reflect the actual (non-subsidized, non-dumping) cost of growing food without inputs from non-renewable resources - it will make much more sense for many people to grow their own food. Food costs will rise beyond their 1955 levels (at which time fossil fuels had been used in farming for several decades). De-urbanization will occur, as seen in the two countries that have had their fossil fuel supply cut off - Cuba and North Korea. Cuba obviously managed its resources better in this situation than North Korea did.

Teaching farmers how to farm better is one thing. Attempting to turn a largely urban population into a largely farming population is entirely another. And it is the second problem that I am afraid of. Lyrl _Contribs 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl, you don't seem to have read foodfirst's criticism of the Green Revolution (note that fertilizers are not considered a good thing, and that Green Rev farming isn't sustainable per reasons beyond fuel--the land can't sustain Green Rev farming practices). Ethanol doesn't need to save suburban US commuter culture in its current state--who needs it; it's not sustainable either per global warming. Pay attention also to the "I am afraid of"--who shares this view, again?

Overpopulation debunked?

In response to 10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’:

The first argument seems to be that population is not the current cause of problems traditionally attributed to it.

I absolutely agree. My point is not that population pressures are currently causing the problems of the world, but rather that population is going to become the driving problem after peak oil.

I agree with the article that well-managed resources can support a much larger population at a higher standard of living than poorly-managed resources.

However, that does not have any relevance to the fact that well-managed resources can provide a higher standard of living to smaller populations than to larger populations relying on the same well-managed resources. This is not currently an issue with our use of non-renewable resources (current issue is entirely resource mismanagement as they discuss). However, population will become an issue as those non-renewable resources enter depletion.

Their second line of argument appears to be that the specter of overpopulation fosters the mindset behind wasteful and outright abusive practices in population control programs.

Again, I think they (and you) have a good point. It is critical that all countries and U.N. agencies create better resource management programs, as well-managed resources can support a much larger population at a higher standard of living than poorly-managed resources. It is undeniable that better resource management has been inadequately addressed, in large part because of the focus on population. But again, that does not have any relevance to the fact that well-managed resources can provide a higher standard of living to smaller populations than to larger populations relying on the same well-managed resources. The problems of population and resource management are intertwined.

I feel like Food First Policy Brief No.12 actually supports my point of a coming food scarcity:

high-yielding varieties are actually high-feeding varieties that over time mine the... soils... of their natural fertility, requiring higher and higher applications of fertilizer. This eventually degrades those soils, leading to extensive erosion. Given the end of cheap oil, and the inevitable explosion of fertilizer costs, what kind of future does the Green Revolution really offer...? (bolding mine)

This does not just apply to poor farmers, it applies to every farmer in developed countries, too. Peak oil will cause a decline of agricultural productivity everywhere in the world.

In the Punjab—home of the Green Revolution—nearly 80% of groundwater is now “overexploited or critical”. This draw down may be irreversible. Because most of these grains are exported, the hydrological result of the Green Revolution packages is the sacrifice of India’s ancient aquifers.

Significant portions of the U.S. farmlands are likewise unsustainably irrigated with groudwater. When an aquifer is overexploited, it may collapse. Meaning it can never be refilled - thus the comment about "irreversible" draw down. The Ogallala aquifer, for example, is of just as significant a concern in the U.S. as are the groundwater resources in India.

Their examples of the problems associated with loss of biodiversity are mainly drawn from the U.S. Again, some of the major problems of the Green Revolution are not specific to developing countries - they are going to bite U.S. in the behind, also.

I really hope the model outlined in the rest of the paper is implemented. Both in developing countries, and also right here at home. I agree it is a wonderful example of better resource management that will help mitigate the problem of agricultural dependence on non-renewable resources, and also help rectify the social and environmental problems imposition of Green Revolution technology on the developing world has caused.

But it does not address at all the issue that worldwide agricultural productivity is going to decrease. Teaching farmers how to farm better (the main topic of this paper) is one thing. Taking a huge population of city folks and attempting to turn them into farmers - what is going to be required in a post-peak world - is entirely another. Lyrl _Contribs 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that since we currently have a surplus--created by the destructive ans unsustainable GR farming practices--that a decrease in agricultural productivity is not therefore a bad thing. You haven't convinced me that the end of unsustainable farming will result in famine--please provide reliable sources stating that this is a prominent POV. GR farming is not sustainable with or without oil & gas--if it scares US citizens that their current lifestyle is not sustainable, and that that might become apparent in their lifetimes, so what?

Cindery 01:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A POV has to be prominent to be valid? And how prominent is the view that hormonal contraception is "heinous"? I don't think either one of us is in a position to be criticising the other for holding minority views. As far as simply "who shares this view" I can certainly give you an incomplete list

• Wolf at the Door: Agriculture
• Fifty Million Farmers
• Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply
• Life After the Oil Crash

Lyrl _Contribs 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That Norplant, Depo Provera, Dalkon Shield were harmful is not a minority view. (I haven't mentioned hormonal contraception in general, or the pill--but the official position of the National Women's Health Network is against the birth control pill--that would be a minority view, but quite a significant and reliable one, with adherents. Note that Susan Wood is on the board of directors. Alice Wolfson's positon is that anything other than barrier methods as long as HIV is a risk is "criminal.") Cindery 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

..and: none of your sources are making the arguments you're making. They're all saying: conventional industrial farming--dependent on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers-- is not sustainable, hence a transition has to be made. Better that it be made early enough; transition isn't happening fast enough. None argue that adequate food can't be produced after transition away from unsustainable farming. (They also note the waste inherent in food processing--7x the energy to produce a box of processed ceral than the cereal provides in energy; 3/4 of the food consumed by americans is processed food.) The only mention of population states that improving the economic status of women in developing countries is a good idea--not impoverishing them via the world bank and then dumping norplant on them while they have no healthcare. The point of the sources is: conventional industrialized farming and food proecessing is not sustainable. Farming and food processing have to change. The transition isn't happening fast enough, but can and must be made. The leap from that to: "an unremediable undersupply of food will occur, therefore developing countries are overpopulated" is not made. Even the "doomsday" scenario: a lapse in the transition-- due to irresponsibility of developed nations--will result in temporary food shortage, is a problem that will affect developed nations, not developing nations, as the developing nations already don't have adequate food. (Nor do a significant proportion of poor American households--so, a temporary food shortage cause by industrial farming practice will result in affluent people experiencing the hunger now only experienced by the poor--which is not an argument to pre-emptively get rid of more poor people, but to transition away from industrial/petrochemical farming faster for the benefit of the affluent. The alarmism seems to come in where suburban americans are horrified by the idea of no more Fruit Loops and Big Macs, no more DDT and joyriding in SUVs. Bummer!--but not for Africa and Bangladesh... Cindery 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agricultural impact of peak oil in developing countries

Conventional industrial farming is practiced almost everywhere in the world. Including in developing countries. Larger farmers in developing countries - who produce most of the food - use conventional industrial farming techniques. Large numbers of the smaller farmers have been driven out of business (point 5 in the Food First article).

Developing countries also lack the resources to teach the remaining small farmers how to transition away from dependence on non-renewable resources (point 6 in the Food First article), much less to reintroduce urbanized populations to farming. Food First states that it will take substantial policy and institutional changes, as well as strategic philanthropic support from visionaries who will dare to put their millions in the hands of progressive social movements. Millions of dollars needed to transition developing countries' farming practices. Not likely to be available while the affluent are mourning their Fruit Loops. And it's not like these countries won't be having other problems to deal with.

While the Food First paper cites a large number of promising programs, there is simply not enough time for them to be implemented. They will take decades to convert a significant portion of the developing world, and the agricultural oversupply is not going to last for decades.

While in the long term declining agricultural production of countries like the U.S. will benefit farmers and economies in developing countries, right now huge numbers of people are dependent on imported grain for survival. Food aid was given to over 96 million people in 2006, 50 million of them in Africa . The U.S. has such an enormous food surplus that even with reduced production it will almost certainly be able to feed itself. But people in developing countries expecting to receive food aid will be out of luck.

A temporary food undersupply will occur. Developing nations will be less able to cope than developed ones. Lyrl _Contribs 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you're crossing over the line into hubris. (You're not a Harvard or Oxford professor of demography...let alone Nostradamus--easy on the authoritative proclamations. :-) Perhaps also useful to keep in mind that Paul Erlich prophesied in 1968 that tens of millions of people would starve by the mid 1980s--and largely as a justification for compulsory population control. That's what I find disturbing--the historically persistent tendency towards half-baked alarmism (as a justification for prejudice and injustice). Keep in mind also that countries full of starving people exported food at the same time hunger was a problem during the "surplus", in order to meet debt obligations, and every cent in "food aid" that Africa gets is subtracted by US-backed World Bank policies. (Less than 1% of the US budget is foreign aid to anywhere...the "agricultural oversupply" has never supported Africa; US is holding exploitative debt that's worth far more than the "food aid" it sends...) Cindery 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting comment I found related to starving countries exorting their food:

An agricultural scientist in the biofuels industry spoke last month at our university. He theorized that the principal problem with peak oil will be food production. He said that biofuel technology will get so efficient and cheap that we will wonder why we didn't start looking to sugar cane and palm oil for our fuel needs decades ago. He argued that deforestation and the diplacement of food crops to produce biofuel will be the most critical humanitarian crisis in the developing world in the coming decades. He predicted that despots would rise to power in the developing world and would grow rich off the proceeds of palm oil biodiesel while thousands starved because farmland had been reappropriated. An interesting twist on the "doomer" perspective from someone in the ag business. (scroll down to comments section)

Not all "prophesies" have failed to come true. In 1972 the book Limits to Growth forcast that growth would end approximately 2015. The 2004 update sticks to that prediction. Lyrl _Contribs 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Limits"--all the neo-Malthusian scare books of the late 60s and early 70s have the credibility of Nixon--who also believed in them. Or maybe astrology. Somewhere between Nixon and astrology...

Re: "interesting comment"--I just don't read crackpot blogs. (Except maybe Gawker. That's more of a commerical tabloid than a crackpot blog, though, I guess...) Cindery 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Food aid is absolutely bad for Africa's economies. It should never have been implemented so poorly, and in any case most countries should have been trasitioned off it a long time ago. Nevertheless, I have not seen any argument that having food aid suddenly cut off could result in anything but short-term starvation. Lyrl _Contribs

What's bad for Africa's economies is the US/World Bank/IMF--Sub-saharan Africa is a massive 272 billion dollars worse off because of "free" trade policies forced on it as a condition of receiving aid and debt relief:

And since the US provides the least in foreign aid in relation to its GNP than any industrialized nation, I'm sure Japan and the EU would send food aid to Africa if all Americans felt as you do. Happily, that's not the case--polls show that 70% of American's are in favor of sending more aid to Africa. Maenwhile, actual development aid to Africa is needed in addition to food aid, as Tony Blair keeps telling Bush. (Paul Erlich shared your view, though, that food aid is a bad thing--in additon to advocating compulsory population control, he advocated letting "other people" starve.) Cindery 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you believe non-renewable resources are never going to run out. I'm a crackpot. Got it. Lyrl _Contribs 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument, and it's painfully obvious. I never said non-renewable ressources aren't going to run out, as you are aware. What's being disputed is several leaps in logic you have made to a view which no one shares. (A change from unsustainable farming will therefore result in a temporary food shortage, which will affect developing countries more than undeveloped countries, which therefore makes them overpopulated. Your self-righteosness and alarmism are also not shared by anyone. I think if you stubbornly hold an irrational extreme minority view, it may be time to agree to disagree--as long as you understand that, for the purposes of any article, your views are uncitable original reseach.) Cindery 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• A change from unsustainable farming will result in lowered agricultural productivity in the areas of the world that currently produce the most grain.
• Lowered productivity does not necessarily mean food shortage. There are many obvious ways to counter decreased production: increased acreage being farmed, decreased wastefullness such as animal product consumption, victory gardens, etc. However, these measures take time to implement - land has to be transferred, farmers and gardeners have to be trained, people who feel they have a "right" to eat meat will be reluctant to decrease consumption, etc. If the transition is not smooth, temporary shortages are possible.
• Farming practices in the largest grain exporting countries are currently heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Because grain is a commodities market, increased production costs do not cause increased sale prices. But at a certain price point, farms will begin going out of business or converting to sustainable practices. A gradual increase past this price point will most likely result in a gradual conversion to sustainable practices (ideally over several decades). A sudden increase will most likely result in a sudden (less than one decade) decrease in land production as farms go out of business.
• Because we are near the point of fossil fuel production going into decline (natural gas in North America, and petroleum worldwide), it is reasonable to expect a sudden increase in prices.

Food production is a complex activity. My prediction of what will happen to it in the next decade is based on a large number of factors. You have not to this point addressed any of them (to reference only the portion of the argument above, possible points of debate are 1)lowered agricultural productivity as a result of moving away from conventional practices, 2)time factor involved societal adjustment to lowered commercial production, 3)response of agribusinesses to cost-of-business increases, 4)nearness of peak oil, 5)effect of peak oil on market prices of petroleum). If you are interested in addressing these factors, I find it an interesting topic to discuss.

If you are not interested in actually addressing them, but only in making vague unsupported statements about "no credibility", and hurtful accusations of wishing people would starve, then I won't waste the time of either one of us by typing out more of the argument. Agreeing to disagree sounds very peaceful. Lyrl _Contribs 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl, I'm sorry, but you don't know enough about sustainable farming for it to be an interesting disussion for me to have for the sake of it--you seem to think the Green Revolution is "news," and you'd never heard very common criticism of GR viz sustainability, re fertilizers, soil damage etc. I'm also not going to discuss your "predictions" with you further--I tried to gently point out--"who shares this view, again?"--that it's an extreme minority view, and then I more firmly pointed out that you're not Nostradamus or a demographer, and that Erlich's "population bomb" alarmism about people starving is a recurrent phenomenon (people have been saying the world is overpopulated and doom is nigh since the Romans) and that it has been both abused as an argument for population control and thoroughly discredited. I'm sorry you thought it was "hurtful" that I pointed out that Erlich advocated letting people starve--I found your comment that most countries "should have been transitioned off of food aid" very disturbing, especially in combination with your shared conviction with Erlich that "overpopulation" exists. You are, again, making untenable leaps in logic to come to your view of "therefore, overpopulation," and unlike the late 60s and early 70s, you're not even in a crowd of others with the wrong idea. I find that scary and sad, as I have always thought of you as mostly rational. Cindery 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why would I argue with you about something I agree with (GR not sustainable, environmental damage, etc.)?
• "Majority belief = truth" is a logical fallacy (Argumentum ad populum). My professional training does not ipso facto make my opinions outside the area of heat treatment automatically invalid, just like it does not make my decisions on carburizing processes automatically correct (that would be another logical fallacy - Appeal to authority). Stating that my belief is invalid because it superficially shares characteristics with theory systems that have been proven false is an association fallacy.
• The implication that I was in favor of letting people starve was (is!) hurtful. My belief is that more money should have been spent increasing the resource management of communities and making countries self-sufficient to the point where they did not need food aid ("transitioning off"), rather than providing them with food in such a way that they are now dependent on it and vulnerable to supply shortages in the international grain market (which would result in them being "cut off").

I have explained my position in sufficient detail that it could be debated - and even pointed out a number of places where I could be wrong! You have not offered such debate. Lyrl _Contribs 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you have a view no one else shares, perhaps it is not everyone else who is wrong (and you cannot reasonably expect anyone to have endless patience or desire to discuss it with you).
• I think it's your attitude re "they should have been transitioned" that made me think that--you don't seem to get that Africa is being ripped off to the tune of 272 billion dollars--it's not thst Africa is poorly managing its resources; Africa is being robbed. Before development aid to Africa could begin to make a diff, the exploitative "free" trade policies would have to end. "They should have been transitioned" has arrogance and victim-blaming, a lack of understanding of the situation in total (esp. because you cliamed that food aid was "bad for Africa's economy," and I pointed out what is actually bad for Africa's economy and it didn't give you pause.

Cindery 11:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad contraception worse than none at all?

This statement caught my eye: dumping cheap contraception with heinous health effects is worse for developing countries than no contraception at all. I was curious if you had a source that developed that argument further? Lyrl _Contribs 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Barbara Ehrenreich essay on Depo and the Dalkon Shield is an excellent explication of the idea that bad contraception is worse than none at all.

Meanwhile, do you have a source for this?:

when funds are insufficient to provide all needed services, the best health improvements per money spent may be gained by increased contraceptives

(Not even UNFPA, since the 1994 Cairo Consensus, says anything like that--many agreements which came out of Cairo are not followed, and criticism persists. But following Cairo, there was at least international agreement that coercion and quotas should go, money should be spent on girls' education, that contraception should be part of healthcare, which is equally important.)

Cindery 02:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the Ehrenreich paper says Pharmaceutical company spokespeople, officials of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) and representatives of private population control agencies stood up one after another to advance the "humanitarian" defense of the double standard. Because the risks of dying in childbirth are so much greater in the Third World than in the United States, they asserted the use of almost any contraceptive is justified. That argument has certainly been made by prominent people. Ehrenreich herself does not even dispute the implication that even problematic contraception is better than none at all, but rather argues that women deserve better than American contraceptive rejects.

..it seems to have gone completely over your head that Ehrenreich is reaming them with heavy sarcasm for making such irrational and hypocritical pronouncements, and exposing the hypocrisies/irrationalities which population controllers openly stated before Cairo Consensus. (The rightwing nutjob who was high up at FHI, in favor of quinacrine, and wrote the endless screed about how the Catholic Church is threatening US national security by opposing contraception was the last person to publicy make that argument, which was answered with utter contempt. As in, if the possibility of dying in childbirth is so high, and we must prevent it by any means necessary, wouldn't it be more expedient to just kill everyone to prevent maternal mortality?)

Here it says “Quick Wins” are actions that save lives at modest cost. At the top of the "Quick Wins" list is contraception.

You seem to have overlooked several very important observations from the report on Albania:

1. the main problem in Albania is mismanagment/disorganization of aid money;the money is managed so badly that available money is not being used:

This can be applied to the management of aid to Albania. For example, aid organizations pledged $4.28 billion from 1991 to 2003, but only $2.9 billion, or 65 percent of the committed amount was used.

“Good governance is a condition for guaranteeing opportunities to have social and economic impact,” said Minister Malaj. “ much to do in this context, ensuring more public revenue from the economy, and domestic revenue. Partnership is at the centre of all the policies, realized by government institutions, but also all stakeholders. There is a need to have a broader debate on development policies, more transparency.”

“International donors are not coordinated among themselves,” said Mayor Rama. “If MDG eight is the development of Global Partnerships – the premise is that those who are better off should help those who are worse off - with greater coordination, the energies and financial resources given to Albania could have much bigger results. It is indispensable that we have shared common goals.”

2. The "quick wins" are Albanian-specific, and secondary to using available money:

In Albania, the resources required to halve the number of people living in poverty amounts to $21.14 billion for the period of 2000 to 2015. Albania received $342 million in ODA for 2003. At this level of assistance, the ODA would have to increase to 5.5 times the current annual amount and be sustained for 12 years to achieve the MDGs by 2015.

However, if governance and donor coordination are improved and Albanian-relevant “quick wins” implemented, the amount needed to achieve the MDGs will be reduced.

3. The report does not make the argument that contraception is a higher value than health care, it only states two areas of healthcare in Albania which could be expanded, and includes contraception in "sexual and reproductive health information and services," which is a category which includes all maternal/child health programs funded by UNFPA, i.e., all their "safe motherhood" programs--it makes the opposite assertion you're making--"quick wins" involves safe motherhood and access to contraception, not contraception over safe motherhood.

“Quick Wins” are actions that save lives at modest cost, says the Report. Recommendations that are relevant to Albania include:

• Expanding access to sexual and reproductive health information and services, including family planning and contraceptive information and services, and closing existing funding gaps for supplies and logistics;
• Expanding the use of proven drug combinations for AIDS and tuberculosis;

Cindery 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend my statement to be exclusive of everything other than contraception. In a low-contraceptive-use country, increased contraceptive use is one of the cheaper ways (but not the only cheaper way!) to acheive significant health improvements. I don't think we're actually arguing against each other here, just stating the same thing in different ways.

I'm still curious to see a source that explicitly states that certain forms of contraception are "worse than none at all." I have only seen the argument that we should be providing better contraception (which does not necessarily have to be more expensive - withdrawal, LAM, FA, and SDM are all not only effective, but cheap). But I'm getting the impression that you believe we should disband the international population organizations, and I'm just interested in more information on that viewpoint. Lyrl _Contribs 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What you said, verbatim, is: when funds are insufficient to provide all needed services, the best health improvements per money spent may be gained by increased contraceptives--which disturbed me because I recognized it as 1) pre-Cairo justifications for contraceptive dumping 2) a bias which persists in low-grade media and US highschool social studies textbooks. The specific context for your statement was contraception vs. adequate healthcare regarding maternal mortality. So yes, we are arguing against each other, unless you'd like to retract that. Contraception can be used to lower maternal mortality caused by abortion. Safe motherhood/other healthcare can be used to lower maternal mortality from pregnancy and childbirth. Contraception is not advocated to lower maternal mortality from pregnancy and childbirth--the causes of maternal mortality from childbirth and pregnancy are not childbirth and pregnancy itself, they are inadequate nutrition and prenatal care, etc. You also made the statement in the general context of population and development. So no, given poverty--"insufficent funds to provide all needed services"--contraception does not give the best per-dollar health improvement. That implies that eliminating people is the solution to eliminating poverty. As you can see from UN strategy for Albania, the solution to poverty is resources.

(Albania--like some other Eastern European countries, and some parts of the former Soviet Union--has free abortion on demand, and provides less contraception; abortion is used as contraception. The most common form of abortion in Albania is D&C--which has a higher mortality rate than contraception or suction abortion. So providing more contraception to Albania could result in less abortion mortalities, and reduce the use of abortion as contraception. The rationale for providing more contraception to Albania is not to reduce maternal mortality from pregnancy and childbirth, but to reduce mortality from abortion.)

Re: certain forms of contraception are "worse than none at all"--yes, it's obvious that the Dalkon Shield was worse than nothing at all--if contraception kills, it's worse than nothing; it decreases rather than increases quality of life for the user, obviously--but also her family and her society. The use of Depo by doctors accompanied by soldiers in East Timor was worse than nothing at all, according to the Yale Genocide Project. (And Mojo:

As the Hampshire program on pop-dev points out, there has been an over-emphasis on the pop-orgs providing Norplant and Depo in developing countries. Norplant and Depo have more serious side effects and risks than other forms of contraception--side effects and risks which are more severe for women without sufficent nutrition or access to healthcare. They also do not protect against HIV. The emphasis on them reflects population control, not "humanitarian" reproductive freedom: driving down population through provider-controlled methods, no matter what it does to women's health. Cindery 17:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced contraception - like that in East Timor - is worse than nothing at all. I stated at the outset of this discussion my opposition to forced contraception.

What I was curious about was if specific types of voluntary contraception, in the context of developing countries, was worse than none at all. If the international population agencies have engaged in systematic coerced contraception, that would also serve to turn my opinion against them. Currently, I'm only aware of China's reproductive rights abuses, as well as cases of smaller ethnic wars such as that in East Timor, not from the international groups.

• Here, for example is why women's groups and doctors oppose depo in India:

• You seem to have missed that the forced use of Depo in East Timor was by a World Bank funded program (and that the Bank refused comment)

• The most recent forced sterilization scandal was in Peru, with USAID funding:

From Saving the Lives of Mothers and Newborns, a publication of "Save the Children", The three most effective interventions for future mothers are education, nutrition and access to modern contraceptives... family planning saves the lives of mothers and babies by enabling women to avoid pregnancy when they are too young or too old, and to space their births at healthy intervals. Page 15 is headed by a chart titled Where more women use family planning, fewer newborns die. In the context that delayed first pregnancy and increased birth spacing decrease both maternal and infant mortality and morbidity, increased contraceptive usage is one of the main ways (but certainly not the only one!) in which lives are saved. It's not about reducing the number of people - decreased mortality may very well result in more people, despite lower pregnancy and birth rates. It's about increasing health.

Increased contraceptive usage may or may not result in the most per-dollar health benefits; it would depend on the specific situation of the country. Though ideally the question would never have to be answered exactly, as hopefully aid is both sufficient and managed carefully enough to provide a spectrum of services.

There's a big difference between contraception as a choice in total healthcare, and maternal mortality from childbirth and pregnancy as the justification for bad contracpetion on a "humanitarian" argument. See analysis of Mumford's argument-for-quinacrine:

All women who desire contraception deserve the best contraceptive for them, whatever that may be. It's wrong that they have to choose only from what political shenanigans have to offer them, and that effective, traditional methods like withdrawal have been deliberately campaigned against by population programs. But in low-contraceptive use countries without sufficient health care, increases in any form of contraception are going to lower maternal and infant mortality. Were the number of death from Dalkon Shield greater than the number of lives saved by it? I don't think it's a clear-cut question with a black-and-white answer.

No, there is a black and white answer: giving contraception which can kill to healthy people because they might die from something else is not ok. As I tried to explain, if you hold that view, you are in an extreme minority with Mumford; not even the pop orgs would openly side with you post-Cairo. (For Dalkon, as Ehrenreich pointed out, we will never know ho many women died in developing countries--we can only guess based on the number of unsterilized Shields sent.)

Contraceptive programs have been mismanaged, and women deserved (and deserve) better. But I'm more of the view (with the information I currently have) that these programs could have, and should have, helped more, rather than they have not helped at all. Lyrl _Contribs 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for reform of international family planning orgs should not be conflated with the orgs themselves--i.e., the possibilty that they could distribute better contraceptives, and advocate a true range of oprions does not mean that they can't be criticized for distributing bad contraceptives, in alliance with pharmaceutical orgs they took bribes from, to further the political intersests of countries which funded them. As you point out, they advocate against the withdrawl method (which in combination with any kind of FA is not a bad method. It is however, impossible to profit from and not provider-controlled. It's also already practiced, which gives the lie to the need for more contraceptive "acceptors" strictly on the basis of how many use of chemical/hormonal methods.) Cindery 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is giving a vaccine which can kill healthy people who might die of an illness not ok? What if a less risky, more expensive version is available (for example injectable polio, expensive, vs. oral polio, which is banned in the U.S. but used throughout the developing world)? Lyrl _Contribs 22:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl, you don't seem to have read the bioethical analysis of Mumford 's completely untenable position(Not to mention that you're undeterred by Ehrenreich and the UN..) In the case of vaccines there's no alternative; in the case of the Dalkon Shield there were nothing but alternatives. It's a morally reprehensible position to argue that a form of contraception which killed people, in a more lethal form--unsterilized--was justified because 500,000 women a year die from pregnancy or childbirth which can be prevented by nutrition and prenatal care. I'm not going to repeat this again, and frankly, I've lost a lot of respect for you. Cindery 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no alternative to vaccines"? Sanitation, sanitary practices, and improved nutrition reduce infection rates more than vaccines do. Nobody ever died from drinking water not contaminated by feces, washing their hands frequently, or eating more veggies. People die every year from vaccine reactions. Not to mention your lack of response to the injectable vs. oral polio vaccine issue.

While I think vaccines save huge numbers of lives, it's more complicated than "no alternative".

Mumford was driven by an "us against them" view of overpopulation that I think was false and counterproductive. Amoung his many unsavory practices was promotion of forced contraception, which I have twice before explicitly stated my opposition to. Why you continue to believe that I favor misguided "humanitarian" programs that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the impoverished is not something I'm understanding.

Have I ever stated that international distribution of the Dalkon Shild was justified? Lyrl _Contribs 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing patience with the just-barely-past-undergraduate semantic argumentativeness--vaccines to prevent specific diseases are not comparable to birth control to prevent maternal mortality. You don't seem to have read the bioethical analysis of Mumford whereby it is clearly explained that the pregnancy would have to be unwanted--birth control does not prevent maternal mortality from a wanted pregnancy. Birth control as a public health measure to reduce maternal mortality from unwanted pregnancies is a byproduct of birth control use--only nutrition and medical care prevent maternal mortality from pregnancies- in- progress. First, you cited Ehrenreich's denouncement of pharma reps who defended sending the Shield, then you claimed "Were the number of deaths from Dalkon Shield greater than the number of lives saved by it? "--which is morally reprehensible. An obscene number of unsterilized Dalkon Shields were sent to third world countries after sterilized shields were known to maim and kill. (500,000 women a year in 2005 die from pregnancy/childbirth. More than 500,000 unsterilized shields were sent in 70s, if that helps you figure it out.) They were sent to reduce the population and make money for the pharma company, not to reduce maternal mortality. The post-facto justification was a phony "humanitarian" argument, which is untenable: maternal mortality from pregnancy and childbirth is only preventable by nutrition and medical care. Birth control offers reproductive choice, and may as a byproduct prevent maternal mortality from unwanted pregnancy before it occurs. There are many kinds of birth control which do not kill or adversely affect women's health, therefore no method of birth control which kills is justifiable, especially not in a form--unsterilized--which is guaranteed to kill in large numbers. Cindery 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)