Pronatalism and Overpopulation | Challenging the Social Pressures to Procreate
Are our decisions about having children really made freely – without pressure from government, church, business, media, family and friends? The decision to have children or not is arguably one of the most important decisions we make in our lives. It’s largely regarded as an isolated personal decision and a natural rite of passage into adulthood. But how personal, really, is our decision to have a child?
This podcast episode features audio from the World Population Day webinar hosted by World Population Balance on 7 July, 2021: Pronatalism and Overpopulation: Challenging the Social Pressures to Procreate. You can also view the video of the webinar.
Panelists
Laura Carroll
Internationally recognized expert on the childfree choice
Author, The Baby Matrix: Why Freeing Our Minds from Outmoded Thinking about Parenthood & Reproduction Will Create a Better World
Co-Author, Man Swarm: How Overpopulation is Killing the Wild World
Contributor, Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness: The Joys of Otherhood?
Author, Families of Two: Interviews with Happily Married Couples without Children by Choice
Elisabeth Dimitras
Freelance researcher based in Greece for international anti-speciesist NGOs
Creator of educational online platform, Ethos & Empathy
Orna Donath
Israeli sociologist, lecturer, writer and feminist activist
Author, Regretting Motherhood
Teaches at Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University, and the Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yafo
Dr. Amrita Nandy
New Delhi-based researcher and writer whose work on gender, rights and culture has been published in national and international books, journals
Author, Motherhood and Choice: Uncommon Mothers, Childfree Women
MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:
-
Nandita Bajaj 0:00
Dave, did you know pronatalism is the number one cause of human overpopulation?
Dave Gardner 0:06
Really? I didn't. Can you enlighten me?
Nandita Bajaj 0:09
I'm glad you asked. Let's dig into that on this episode.
Dave Gardner 0:15
Alright, you've arrived at the Overpopulation Podcast where we're doing our best to make overshoot and overpopulation common knowledge. That's step one, if we're going to right size the scale of the human enterprise at a level in sustainable balance with nature. I'm your co-host, Dave Gardner.
Nandita Bajaj 0:33
And I'm Nandita Bajaj, co-host and Executive Director of World Population Balance, an organization that boldly takes a stand on why human overpopulation is devastating our planet, and the many positive ways in which we can help address it.
Dave Gardner 0:49
Learn more at worldpopulationbalance.org.
Nandita Bajaj 0:52
We're going to have a crash course on pronatalism in this episode, but first, do you have any goodies from the inbox, Dave?
Dave Gardner 0:58
Oh, we do have some goodies. In fact, so many goodies that we're having to be pretty particular and just give you a little sample of what we've been hearing lately. We got a really nice email from a gentleman in the Philippines, who discovered our podcast via a conversation on Reddit. Here's what he wrote: "I would like to thank you so much for the amazing podcast episodes that came out recently from the Overpopulation Podcast," he's referring to episode sixty-five - Earth Overshoot Day: Overdrafting the World's Ecosystems, link in the show notes, and the Growth Busters Podcast, episode fifty-seven, which was titled Overshoot: World's Best Introduction. I was really humble about that title, wasn't I? Returning to his quote, "They are some of the best lecturers I've ever listened to in my life. I literally applauded after the episode with Dr. William Rees was over. He managed to explain the issue of overshoots so comprehensively, and made it easily understandable to any layman. Honestly, these two episodes should be considered as mandatory listening for all elementary or high school students worldwide. I will regularly listen to these episodes and recommend them to others. When I become a lawyer, I want to be an educator on this subject, and fight for social justice rights to contribute to a growing collective of those who want a radical change in a growth obsessed world. Keep up the great work, the world deserves to hear the truth about growth."
Nandita Bajaj 2:26
Wow, thank you, Brix, for those really kind comments. It sounds like when you finish your law degree, you're going to be invited as a guest to our podcast. We'd love to hear what you're doing.
Dave Gardner 2:38
Yeah, could be. And the Philippines is such an interesting case study, you know, in population policy. That country has fluctuated back and forth as it's changed leadership. And it's suffered mightily at the hands of the Catholic church over there that has just taken such a strong stand against any kind of family planning other than natural family planning. And I think it's like the eleventh most populous country on the planet and has had a pretty high fertility rate, although they have been making progress. Finally, they got a reproductive health bill actually passed. And it ended up having to go through the Supreme Court and they had to kind of water it down a little bit in order to get it finally approved. But they're making a little bit of progress. And I think their fertility right now is down to something like 2.6, maybe? Something like that. So they're making progress, but the Philippines is one of those places that really needs someone like you, Brix, so thanks for writing to us.
Nandita Bajaj 3:35
Yeah, and thanks for that insight too, Dave. We got another really nice email from Kay from Calgary, Alberta, in my home country. "I just listened to your sixty-fifth episode, Earth Overshoot Day. It is the best episode to date. I was introduced to this concept last year, and I thought this is the best formula to deal with the ecological crisis. It combines the main driver of climate change, population and consumption. Like your guest, William Rees, said hardly anyone knows this term. It needs a powerful story behind it just like religion uses for marketing. However, I can't think of one at this time."
Dave Gardner 4:19
Well, it's great that so many people really appreciated that episode, even though we had to put up with having Bill Rees occupy so much of it.
Nandita Bajaj 4:27
It was a drag, wasn't it?
Dave Gardner 4:28
But it really was, I don't know how we managed to be so brilliant, even in the face of having Bill Rees. Hopefully everybody knows that I'm joking like crazy, because William Rees is just the most articulate and knowledgeable person, practically on the planet, about overshoot and overpopulation, and he has a great way of communicating about it.
Nandita Bajaj 4:49
Yeah, I was sad the podcast had to stop. I could have kept listening to him for hours.
Dave Gardner 4:55
Yep.
Nandita Bajaj 4:55
Great. Anyway, thank you all so much for your comments. We're always up for feedback or even topic requests. Send an email to podcast@populationbalanced.org.
Dave Gardner 5:07
Yes, please do. And thank you, Bill Rees, for that great appearance on our podcast. So Nandita, I've congratulated you before for the really well put together World Population Day webinar that you hosted back on July 7th, a few days before World Population Day. Pronatalism: Challenging the Social Pressures to Procreate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've taken the position that pronatalism is the main cause of overpopulation, and that's been a bit of an eye opener for me.
Nandita Bajaj 5:35
Thank you, Dave. This work on pronatalism really has been a labor of love for a few years for me. As you know, I just finished my graduate degree in humane education. And the focus of my research for the last couple of years really has been pronatalism, which is, as you'll find out from this episode, the social bias towards having children. And the premise of pronatalism is that everyone, especially women, desire to be and should be mothers. And, you know, the problem with that notion is that while parenthood can be and is the right path for so many, this bias, it undermines fully informed and authentic decision-making about having kids. And it also leaves out representations of family structures that don't fit the traditional nuclear family model. So I've done a deep dive into not just pronatalism, but also how it's so intimately linked to overpopulation. And for this webinar, I assembled a panel of four women from around the world who have observed and studied pronatalism in their own cultures. And, you know, I've been so inspired by their work over the course of my research over the last couple of years, that I was honored to be able to speak with them on this panel. If you miss the panel, you just want to sit and watch, the link is in the show notes. But in case you want to listen to it instead, while you jog, hike, farm, garden, or commute, we're sharing the slightly streamlined version of the webinar in this episode of the podcast.
Dave Gardner 7:13
Well, I can't wait. I attended the webinar, but I will listen to this as well. And thanks for opening our eyes about this. So without further ado, here is Pronatalism: Challenging the Social Pressures to Procreate.
Nandita Bajaj 7:28
Hello, everyone and welcome to our Pronatalism and Overpopulation webinar. I'm honored to welcome to our webinar, a distinguished group of panelists from four different countries to discuss the deeply pervasive pressures of pronatalism, which is the social bias towards having children. Before I introduce our lovely guests, I would like to say a few words on behalf of World Population Balance. The decision to have children or not is arguably one of the most important decisions we make in our lives. It is largely regarded as an isolated and personal decision and a natural rite of passage into adulthood. However, today we will examine to what degree this decision is truly personal. Our panelists will help uncover the myriad of social beliefs, assumptions, and forces across different cultures that pressure us into having children without examination and undermine autonomous decision making about childbearing. Pronatalism is both pervasive and oppressive, and is at the heart of extensive reproductive and social injustice around the world. Reproductive injustice is most well known to us through the legacy of social Darwinism and of the twenty-first century eugenics movement with all the gender, racial, ethnic, ablest, religious, and paternalistic biases inherent in decisions made by those in power at the time and continue to afflict many communities around the world today. Pronatalism has a similar flavor in that it adopts cheap methods of forcing people into having children whether it is to grow the taxpayer base, the consumer base, the religious base, or simply to carry on our genealogical legacy. It is, however much more subtle because it is premised on the well accepted belief that having children is natural and normal, which is why it is often taken for granted and more difficult to see and challenge. We denounce and work to eradicate oppressive, top-down reproductive control measures, including pronatalism, that violate human rights and interfere with our authentic identity formation. In honor of World Population Day on July 11th, I'd also like to draw the intimate connection between pronatalism and overpopulation. Human population has doubled in the last fifty years, growing from approximately four billion in 1970 to almost eight billion currently. During that same time, climate change has emerged as an existential threat, especially for the world's most vulnerable populations, and the global nonhuman vertebrate population has declined by 68%. Globally, we are facing multiple interlocking crises: famines, wars, deadly pandemics, and an increase in natural disasters. Population and consumption pressures perpetuate a lot of social ills, the effects of which are most seriously experienced by communities that do not have the means to buy their way out of these problems. We will also discuss this link with our panelists today. Lastly, in the process of our discussion, we will likely touch upon themes that may be deeply personal and may sometimes feel difficult to navigate. Each of us is coming to this webinar at a different point in our journey of defining what family means to us, with varying levels of understanding and leverage points to affect systemic change. I request that we approach this event in a spirit of compassion and nonjudgment for all that are gathered here. And with that, I'm honored to introduce our panelists. I'd like to start with Dr. Amrita Nandy. Amrita is an New Delhi based researcher and writer whose work on gender rights and culture has been published in national and international books, journals, and newspapers. Her doctoral research on women's choices vis-a-vis motherhood and mothering won her the Fox Fellowship at Yale University, and is the subject of her book, Motherhood and Choice: Uncommon Mothers, Childfree Women. She's the winner of the 2015 Ladli National Media and Advertising Award for Gender Sensitivity. Amrita has a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and a master's from the University of Oxford, UK. Currently, she works with human rights and feminist organizations and looks after her elderly parents and plants while trying to fuse it all with the contemplative spiritual. Next we have Elizabeth Dimitras from Greece. Elizabeth holds a BSc in mathematics and an MSc in biodiversity conservation, but she has decided to work on neither of these domains due to the fact that they are both human-centered. For the last three years, she has been working as a freelance researcher for international anti-speciesist NGOs. Being a passionate environmental wild and stray animal protection activist from her childhood, she runs an educational online platform called Ethos & Empathy through which she tries to raise awareness on issues related to nonhuman and human animal rights, as well as to ecology. Currently, the focus of her advocacy is on promoting a vegan, child-free, and flight-free lifestyle, as these are the three main ways to live a life with a low carbon footprint. Recently, Elizabeth shared her views on that matter in a mini documentary series by The Guardian called The Baby Bust. Next, we have Laura Carroll from the US. Laura is an internationally recognized expert on the child-free choice. She is the author of The Baby Matrix: Why Freeing Our Minds from Outmoded Thinking about Parenthood & Reproduction Will Create a Better World, a book on the societal impacts of pronatalism and the importance of moving to a post-pronatalist world. Her books also include Man Swarm: How Overpopulation is Killing the Wild World, which she co-authored, Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness: The Joys of Otherhood?, and Families of Two: Interviews with Happily Married Couples without Children by Choice. Laura has been featured on major television and radio media, including ABC's Good Morning America, NPR, and Canadian CBC Public Radio. She and her work have been in a wide range of print and digital media, including Women's Health, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, and New York Magazine. And then we have Orna Donath from Israel. Orna is an Israeli sociologist, lecturer, writer, and feminist activist. She teaches at Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University, and the academic college of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Orna has studied and teaches the fields of nonmotherhood, motherhood, and time and emotions from sociological and feminist perspectives. She is a social activist and the writer of the book Regretting Motherhood, which was translated into fourteen languages, in which he discusses the pressures placed on women whose choices are seen as a threat to the status quo. She wishes to undermine the socially accepted idea that being a woman inherently includes motherhood, and claims that pushing women into motherhood can cause them great suffering. In addition to her academic research, she has served as the chairwoman of the governing board of one of the rape crisis centers in Israel, where she still volunteers, since 2004. And with that, welcome to our distinguished panelists, we are so excited to have you here. I'd like to start by asking my first question from Laura Carroll. In your book, The Baby Matrix, you challenge seven of the most pervasive assumptions associated with pronatalism. Can you tell us a bit about them?
Laura Carroll 15:31
Sure. After publishing Families of Two, which is about child-free couples, I continued my research on the child-free choice and focused on the question, why is this choice so hard for society to accept? And this led me to learn a lot about pronatalism, how far back it goes in history, and really what led to its powerful influences on society, really, for generations. And as you referred to, it includes many beliefs about reproduction and parenthood - beliefs that are now so strong that they've become to be seen as truths in life. So, one of these beliefs I challenge in The Baby Matrix is what I call the pronatalist destiny assumption, which gets it the idea that we're all supposedly biologically wired to want children. That that that desire is innate. Another I call the normality assumption, which is about the pronatalist belief that if we don't want children, somehow there's something wrong with us. And with that, for women, it's in the pronatalist world, motherhood has always been synonymous with womanhood. So if you choose not to be a mother, there's something about you that's lacking, or you're not a real woman, is a sort of a sub-belief set. And similarly, for men, men can be looked at, if they don't want children, as how could you not want or have that procreative virility and be to be a father? So there are two - that there's lacking or that he's he's not a real man through pronatalist eyes. I also take on the marriage assumption, or pronatalist view of it, which challenges an old idea that the reason to marry is to have a family. Family being defined as having children. And then related to this is a powerful pronatalist assumption that I call the fulfillment assumption, which gets it the myth that the ultimate path to fulfillment in life is parenthood. I also go into The Baby Matrix down the road in life, and call it the pronatalist elderhood assumption. I discussed the beliefs associated with um, we should have children so that they will, our adult children will be there for us when we were old, that that's a guarantee. And then two more that have to do more with negative impacts that society grapples with, from believing that one - everyone has the right to have children, whether they're ready to or prepared to or not. And two - that everyone has the right to have as many biological children as they want. These to create many negative impacts and problems in our society. So for each of the seve, I also propose what I term a post-pronatal-societal mindset that's really based on truths and realities of today's society, which I hope that we can talk about more as a panel a little bit later on.
Nandita Bajaj 18:33
Wonderful. And Laura, I can relate to every single of those seven assumptions. I've heard them all, as someone who's chosen not to have children, I have been prodded and pried with lots of questions. And especially the normality one - being a woman is equivalent to being a mother, and if you're not taking that dominant choice, then there is something wrong with you. I'm going to move it over to Amrita. You're doing a lot of work on pronatalism in India, very specific to that culture. And I think a lot of the seven assumptions that Laura spoke about do show up. You speak very specifically about the role of tradition in within the Indian culture. You talked about maternormative, a word that you use in your book, Motherhood and Choice. Can you talk about some of the research highlights from your book and also define that word for us?
Amrita Nandy 19:27
Sure. Now, for those who don't know about the book, Motherhood and Choice, very briefly, it's a dialogue. A lived dialogue between the outliers of motherhood and the norms of motherhood. So these outliers are women who reject or challenge motherhood and mothering in different ways. And then the wide field of norms of motherhood, or the ideologies like the acculturation, social compulsions, or even moral policing of mothers. That's the range that I called maternormativity. To a few highlights from my work, my research took me to, to very diverse sites. For example, the adoption centers, the doulas class for pregnant women, to a brothel, the waiting room of a fertility clinic, the office of a filmmaker, a government department, and so on. And these were sites where I found mothers, nonmothers, both voluntary and involuntary, and so on, trying to, at times, fit in or negotiate struggle, even subvert the ideologies of motherhood. And I saw repeatedly how pervasive maternormativity is, both within and across our cultures, our class strata, even social systems. But then I also found resistance to and more cracks in this mainstream woman-mother imaginary. The fascinating part is that these cracks aren't just from those who refuse motherhood, but also from inside the motherhood tent, as it were. And together, these outliers are crossing boundaries of the maternormative, of femininity, and disrupting established social narratives. But I'll begin with the child-free, first. It's a, in India, it's a very small but growing tribe so far, but they're asking very thought provoking questions that we're perhaps very uncomfortable and afraid to ask, which is, why do we even want children? And and what does this hunger for a child really say about our inner lives? Must biology be allowed to determine women's lives? And so on. And I think these are striking nudges towards self discovery. Interestingly, most of these child-free women I met are still caregivers to their parents, siblings, pets, you know, and leading lives with meaning and fulfillment. They seem mostly limited to certain urban circles of financial independence in higher education. But child-freeness is not entirely a new or a modern idea. Hinduism has had a number of women, especially female saints, who are not enamored by feminine roles. All Buddhist texts offer examples of mothers leaving for the ascetic community. Now to the mothers who are shaking the pillars of motherhood. I met women and couples who voluntarily adopted children, that is, adoption was not out of an incapacity to reproduce, but out of an ideological belief. So they wanted to make a statement against the essentialism of birth, of our dogmas about blood being thicker, of only genetic ties as authentic, and so on. And I think these testimonials are very brave in that they expose the cultural clout and the romanticization of motherhood. So to sum it up, Nandita, I think I'm trying to shine the light on this assortment of maternal outliers, mothers and nonmothers, who offer us very interesting and progressive alternatives to patriarchal motherhood, to belonging, and less oppressive models of caregiving, and showing us what it may mean to examine our own naturalization - the layers of being in the world - in a way where we, where women can live fully and with relatively more autonomy.
Nandita Bajaj 23:02
Thank you, Amrita, that was so beautifully captured. And it ties back to so many of the things, Laura, you spoke about, as well, especially with regards to the fulfillment assumption. What you found with people who choose not to take that path can and do find fulfillment and a lot of other ways and live very meaningful lives. And what I found especially interesting is when you speak about the socialization and the moral policing of our reproductive rights and freedoms, and really the freedom that doesn't quite exist. It's you wrote in your book about it being a choiceless choice. And the fact that it's not just patriarchy, but it's also women and feminists within the movement who have co-opted, in some ways, the arena of reproduction, and can have a backlash towards the non-dominant choices. So I really appreciated that extra piece. Onto you, Orna. I'd like to hear more about the work you're doing, which is actually on the other side of the spectrum, where you are actually interviewing people who have chosen parenthood but have had different experiences from what we normally are sold in culture, which is that it is the height of fulfillment and the best thing an adult can do. In your recent book, Regretting Motherhood, you discuss the idealization of parenthood and its impacts on people's identity. I'd love to hear some highlights from your research.
Orna Donath 24:32
Thank you. First of all, for being here and among magnificent women, I'm really excited to be here. So thank you. And I think, before talking about Regretting Motherhood, I need to take a step back and say something about my first study. It was about the unwillingness to be mothers here in Israel, and I relate to both of my studies kind of the same. Both of them are trying to introduce a different angle to look at this oppression and to try to decolonize the imagination because our imagination is being occupied by some kind of truth, but a partial truth and a lot of fraud, I think. When we are being told that all women, because we are considered to be females, want to be mothers and all women, because we are considered to be female, enjoy being mothers, and relating to motherhood as worthwhile. And I think there is a lack of diversity in the discourse regarding women's alternative identities, which we are, we exist, but we are not talking about it. And what I wanted to talk, in both my studies, is about the notion of being nobody's mom. Sometimes you are nobody's mom because you are not giving birth to children, and sometimes you want to be nobody's mom, even though you are a mother, because in your inner world, you want to go back in time. You regret doing this decision, and you want to go back in being nobody's mom. And I think my studies are trying to decolonize the imagination, because if we can't imagine, if we can't talk about it, if there are no representation of other women's identities, then something in our social reality is getting lost. And another thing I wanted to do in my studies is to talk about - many people consider my study about regretting motherhood like it's a kind of emotional freak show. Let's gather around the window and look at these women who are emotional freaks. And I'm trying to say that in some hours in the day, when you look through the window, it becomes a mirror. And I invite society to look at ourselves. It's not about this emotional freak show. It's about us. What we consider to be the norm, why do we consider it to be the norm? Why we're not putting question marks about our notions. It's not, my study is not only about regretting motherhood, but it's about all of our notions about childbirth, pronatalism, and motherhood. And I guess later on, I will talk about feeling rules, about their political usage of emotions, but I will stop here.
Nandita Bajaj 27:37
Thank you Orna, I really appreciate that term, the emotional freak show of women who don't fit the perfect image of mothers. And this, you know, idea of pitting women against each other - the women who are perfect mothers, and the women who don't fit into the perfect notion of motherhood must be emotional freaks.
Orna Donath 28:00
Allegedly perfect mothers, because there is none.
Nandita Bajaj 28:02
Right, and it just creates so much dichotomy in culture because it's not about the people who are choosing not to be mothers. It's like you're saying, people who are choosing parenthood, the immense pressure that they experience to then live up to this completely unreasonable standard that's laid out for them to be perfect parents and not being able to express any kind of regret, even temporary regret about what's been lost in making that choice, because you're immediately villainized for voicing that kind of concern. I'm looking forward to hearing a lot more about your research. And now I'm going to move it on to Elizabeth. Elizabeth, you were recently featured in a documentary series called Europe's Baby Bust, produced by The Guardian. There was a piece of the documentary about a private organization, Hope Genesis, that aspires to reverse the trend of declining birth rates in Greece. I'd love to hear your views on problems that exist with pronatalist agendas like that.
Elisabeth Dimitras 29:09
Regarding Hope Genesis. The biggest problem with a process like this is that the motive is nationalistic. In general in Greece, the demographic issue is considered as a national problem that seems to be threatening the future of our nation. The motive itself is problematic. It's not that they really care about people who are in isolated places and they cannot have families. So there is a lot of pressure about that. And even people who have been taking the benefit of this project, they also are scared about the islands becoming with no humans at all. And that Turks maybe will take the islands andm you know, we have this long history with Turks, and we are raised with this fear that one day they will take back our country. So this project is very focused on Greece, and they don't take into account, they disregard the fact that we have an ecological problem, that we have human overpopulation. So it's like they are microscopically focused on Greece, and they don't think of the animals, of the environment. So this is basically the biggest problem. And I wonder why they don't instead invest in making easier the adoption system. Because we have many problems with the adoption system in Greece, there are so many kids waiting for years to be adopted, and they could facilitate that. So I really wonder, why is it so important to for the Greek gene not to be lost? I don't understand. I don't see nations.
Nandita Bajaj 30:40
Thank you, Elizabeth. And I think a lot of us here on the call, we really have a global worldview, where we are deeply concerned about the state of the planet, the state of humanity, the state of other species. And a lot of these political agendas or economic agendas are about either outnumbering other tribes, other religions, other types of people, or it is to grow your economic base through having more taxpayers, through having more consumers. And the wellbeing of the people is really not at the center of a lot of these agendas. Thank you for the work that you did in the documentary and for voicing your concerns so publicly. Laura, we'll move it back to you. Subsequent to The Baby Matrix, you also published a book called Man Swarm: How Overpopulation is Killing the Wild World with conservationist Dave Foreman. How do you see the relationship between overpopulation and pronatalism?
Laura Carroll 31:43
When I was researching The Baby Matrix, it inevitably led me to population experts and social problems that involve too many humans on the planet. And really, I learned so clearly that pronatalist beliefs directly intersect with the overpopulation problem. So for example, going back to the assumptions I briefly described. Accepting as a fact of life that we're wired to want children, that we believe there's something wrong with us if we don't want children, and that the having of children is going to bring true fulfillment in life - all of those things profoundly influence people to have children, to continue to bring more humans into the world. People want to feel normal, they want to feel like they're doing what they're supposed to be doing to have a rich, full life as possible. So by believing those truths, as they see them as truths, I think that's what forces the inner desire to have a child and bring a human in is what they feel like is the right thing to do. And then also operating from a given mindset that everyone has the right to have children, and as many as they want, also profoundly influences how many children are brought into the world. And as we know then, the more people that come in, the more problems we have. So I think that the baseline really is the belief system, whether it's true or not, people believe it's true. They believe those truths, and then they act accordingly, thinking, you know, that that's going to make them happy in their own lives and their children's lives, when really, there's so much that is being left out of that picture. But the net effect, in essence, as I see it, is that really pronatalism ends up fueling the overpopulation problem, and that fuel is society's beliefs. So I think that's why today and always, it's so important to understand pronatalism, and why we need to break it down in order to really begin to truly solve world problems that have to do with how many humans are on the planet. And as we know, right now, there's too many.
Nandita Bajaj 33:56
Wonderful, Laura, I couldn't agree with you more. I really do believe, you know, just like we talk about overpopulation is one of the root causes of a lot of other social ills. Pronatalism is the root cause of overpopulation. And I'm so glad that you are drawing that connection through your research. I've been inspired by your work, and actually everyone's work on the panel. And I've created a graduate level course called Pronatalism and Overpopulation: The Personal, Cultural, and Global Implications of Having a Child and how it impacts our own identity and the impacts it has on other humans, other animals who are often left out of the equation, and our planet that is finite. Thank you for that. Next I'm gonna go back to Amrita. When you speak about the maternormative narratives. I'd love to hear the people who are disenfranchised by these normatives.
Amrita Nandy 34:54
Well, I think maternormativity is disempowering for us all, not just for women, but particularly for girls and men. I start with the girls because I think from a young age, they're groomed for marriage and motherhood and if they're lucky for education and career. So most girls and women can never even come to think of motherhood as choice. And this robs them of their ability to fully imagine, to fully live out their authentic selves. And what can be worse than stabbing someone's imagination or crippling their agency? Just because questioning motherhood is like sacrilege. So of all the people that I cover in the research who I think are disempowered or disenfranchised by the maternormative, I'll focus first on mothers. I think for mothers, our maternormative culture controls their motivations, especially their attitude towards paid employment. We know that mothering is often a euphemism for single handed care by women. Yet mothers live with maternal guilt, you know that ceaseless feeling of never doing enough or not being good enough for your child. And on blogs by women, there are heartbreaking accounts of how mothers are constantly judged and policed, including by their own partners, school teachers. No surprise then that India has amongst the lowest female labor force participation rates in the world. And motherhood and other forms of caregiving monopolize women's time. In India, there's a lack of public infrastructure for caregiving, which reveals that we see care as a private domain to be shouldered by women. Now, for those who are unable to have children, maternormativity can often lead to a sense of failure or emptiness, threats of being abandoned by the husband. In urban families with women professionals, the pressure to be a mother may have lessened, but that's nowhere representative, you know in the country. For those who come out as child-free in India, responses are mostly not pleasant, or they involve unsolicited advice. So most child-free women I've met share their child-free status very strategically, only in spaces they deem to be nonjudgmental spaces, as they would prefer to say that they tried to be parents but could not. And this brings some sympathy and support. So clearly, the maternormative is still occupying the pedestal and makes child-freeness quite unacceptable. Another example is the voluntary adoptive mother or couple. You know, they're celebrated for their altruism. But for those couples or women who wanted their voluntary adoption to help loosen the hold of the pronatalist paradigm, or to reformulate kinship beyond the body, their message can get lost in the noise around real or proper motherhood. With the single adoptive mother or single women who adopt children, I saw that the maternormative lens sadly, sort of pits them against this ideal of the conjugal, the procreative family. So they come out looking short or small. And it also reinforces the maternal instinct angle, which is that because women are hardwired to care, these single woman could not resist being mothers. So you sort of lose the edge of what you wanted to say. For the sex worker mother also, I saw that there's both internal and external pressures from the maternormative discourse. And since the the sex worker and her child do not belong to this conjugal, monogamous, procreative unit, that's legit as per patriarchy, they face lifelong stigma. Lastly, but critically, I think maternormativity denies men the chance to fully experience the parent/child journey, and men too get tied to toxic gender roles. I'll give you a small example. The government of India's childcare leave, til last year, the childcare leave of the government of India could only be availed by women with children and not men with children. But last year after facing backlash, they finally included only the single male parent, you know, the man who's lost his wife to death or divorce or has a disabled wife. But for men whose wives are able bodied and functional family members, it is only their wives who can still get the childcare leave. So that's this institutionalization of the maternormative by the state. So, maternormativity is one among the many concentric circles of patriarchy, and is demeaning us all in different ways every day.
Nandita Bajaj 39:15
Thank you for that, Amrita. That was so rich and complex. Often, when we hear about pronatalism, people really do conflate that with well, "It's just a biological drive. It's an instinct." Which is why it's often not seen as oppressive and pervasive, because it's natural and normal. Everyone must want to do this. And earlier on, I did draw the connection between reproductive injustice that's trying to control reproductive freedom by preventing people from having kids. To me, this kind of pressure or the moral policing you're talking about, the political disincentives are very similar, less overt form of coercion that keep people in their limited roles. Speaking about politics, Orna, you alluded to emotions being somehow dictated from within the political sphere. I'd love to hear a little more about that.
Orna Donath 40:13
in order to say something about it, I will use like a kind of choreography, and that is this move. Because the messages are very binary in pronatal societies. We are, we are being promised, women who don't want to be mothers are being promised that they will surely regret not being mothers. I call this political usage of emotions because we are being threatened and frightened by this option, because regret is demonized, and seems the worst thing that can ever happen to one in old age or at one stage. And on the other hand, we are not being told anything about the possibility that women might regret becoming mothers. So this is how emotional rules, this is a term that Arlie Hochschild, she's a sociologist, coined feeling rules. This is how it works. On one hand, we are being promised to be to regret someday, and on the other hand, regret of mothers is being silenced. And I think there's two reasons why it is being silenced. First, because of that sacredness of motherhood, as all my friends here talked about. And second of all, is we are being told that there is a linear story here. That because we are female, it's just a matter of time. It's also, if today, we are already talking about postpartum depression, we are being told, "Okay, you don't have to fall in love at the second of the birth and, okay, not at the first year, the second year," but we are being promised that someday, eventually, it will happen. It's only a matter of time, there is a linear story here. Because we are females, that one day, there is no other option, that's the natural option, that one day you will be happy, you will feel joy, you will consider motherhood as worthwhile. And mothers who regret are subversive to the story, to this linear promise, and to this linear story. Their their emotions are outlaw, because they don't give us, society, the catharsis of the happy ending. Some of the mothers I interviewed are already grandmothers, they're seventy years old, they're fifty years, forty years already they're mothers, and they are looking back and they still say, "No. For me, it was a mistake." And society is so threatened by this option of women who are the owners of their feelings, of their bodies, of their dreams, looking back, and they don't provide this catharsis of happy ending. Of this notion that it's just a matter of time, one day you will enjoy it. This is like bits and pieces of these feeling rules regarding regret and the usage of regret in order to align women into reproduction and motherhood.
Nandita Bajaj 43:32
Thank you, Orna. There's so much in what you just said with regards to the political dictating of emotions and what we are told we are allowed to regret and what we are told we are allowed to feel excited about. Like Amrita was speaking earlier, from a young age when girls are told that their path is towards marriage and childbearing, it really stunts an authentic formation of identity, and it is so demeaning. We are being basically told what's allowed within our own emotional sphere, which is it's seen as personal but how personal is it really? You know, when you look at the cultural norms of the different countries, and you look at the number of kids that are considered normal, a country where the norm is five kids, women and men will say they want five or six kids. To what degree is that decision truly personal? Then you really start to see the role of the politics, you know, weaving in with the personal. Before I move on to the Q and A. I do want to give Elizabeth a chance, because you did get cut off. I want to hear what pronatalism looks like in Greece. What's driving it there?
Elisabeth Dimitras 44:45
Well, there are three reasons. First of all, patriarchy, then religion, and then tradition. So recently, there was a research that show that Greece is the most religious country within the EU, with 80% of people believing that religion is important in their lives. And this is the highest rate among Western nations that report. In general, Greece relies a lot on family. People here can move on in life, thanks to help from the family. The state here is not helping to study or to do anything. So really, family in Greece is something sacred. And we grow up with this narrative that we will study, then we will get married, then we will have kids. And also here, you don't have the like, if some parents or grandparents end up in an elderly house, it's considered something very bad, like, how is it possible to do that. So it's given that we have to take care of our parents, and you know, who is going to take care of me at the end? This is something that many people think all the time. Also, there is a very problematic relation relationship between men and their mothers in Greece. There was a research that showed that one in four men are attached with a mother. So if we combine this problematic relation between men and their mothers and the religion thing, I think it's not a wonder why you just see the majority of them leaving the house only to get married and have kids. You will see only people who do something different, that are people who are, who left Greece, they traveled, the leave the road, they saw that there is another way, and they came back and they decided, I'm not going to do that, I'm going to do something different. And of course, these people are criticized like this is crazy. Like if, one day you will change your mind. It's just, you haven't met the right person, or I don't know what. Basically, these are the three reasons.
Nandita Bajaj 46:49
Thank you, Elizabeth. And there's so much that resonates with the the reasons given by the others. A lot of the same assumptions. I would actually love to open it up to the Q and A at this point, and we can hopefully weave in the other questions about your research. The first question, can you please elaborate on the link between pronatalism, xenophobia, and racism? And government incentives for having children that reflect xenophobic beliefs?
Amrita Nandy 47:17
Well, as a response to your question, I could, I could offer an example from India that indicates how these inter-linkages work and how these are really implicated in the complexities of politics, society, and cultures. And I'd also like to link it to one of our central topics, which is overpopulation. I think we have to be very careful talking about population because, again, I'm basing this on what's happened in India over the past few decades. When policymakers fail at providing resources such as quality healthcare for all, because in India, for example, we defund our public health infrastructure, the overpopulation piece is a convenient buffer for the state. And to come back to the xenophobia a bit, I think, right of center parties, such as India's currently ruling party, they're very vocal and shrill about population growth, and you can easily see how they use this also as a strawman to justify the anti-minority, eugenic agenda. For example, the right-wing party in India has repeatedly and publicly asked Hindu women to procreate more and snubbed those from the minority community to do the opposite. The citizenship amendment exercise, which really led to a lot of protests last year in the country, across the country, are the Population Regulation Bill. These are brazen legislative attempts to change the pluralistic texture of India's population. There are very clear ways in which the overpopulation agenda, the pronatalism agenda, can be co-opted and misappropriated for other ends and means, and we have to be very careful, especially as advocates, to see, you know, who's on the bandwagon and who we'll be speaking with.
Nandita Bajaj 49:04
That's really helpful, Amrita. And to expand to what you're saying about the overpopulation agenda, I'll just add a little bit of context there in in my understanding of what often happens when we start challenging pronatalism, is a lot of the bad history of overpopulation gets brought up as a defense to challenging pronatalism. What we have to reckon with is both pronatalism and reproductive control that was based in the framework of population control are both coercive. They're both about reproductive control of people. And you know, the emergency sterilization campaign that happened in India often gets brought up as a defense, or why we must never speak about overpopulation because overpopulation is always, and almost always conflated with reproductive control. However, we fail to acknowledge that so is pronatalism, and like you're saying, some people are being promoted to have kids, and some people are being snubbed by these governments. So control is still very much at play. And what's often missed out of the picture is overpopulation itself is a major social justice issue that is impacting the most marginalized communities. So we have to constantly acknowledge the horrible history of overpopulation and population control, but not understate the importance of moving forward this conversation in a way that upholds human rights and freedoms for everybody. So thank you for that example. The next question I will ask of Orna, specifically for you. Who are most offended and angered by your work? Do you see a common denominator?
Orna Donath 50:59
I think that the reactions to my studies is based like on a spectrum of people who deny the existence of regretting motherhood, they're saying that this kind of emotion emotional stance cannot be true, doesn't really exist. People who slander the mothers who regret by saying that they're monsters, and on the other pole, other women on the spectrum, who mostly women, sometimes also men, who feel relief by talking about regretting motherhood. Sometimes because they themselves regret, but sometimes because it's parents who experience hardships, and now they feel they can air their emotions. And many times the relief is from people who don't want to be parents. Got a lot of messages from people who don't want to be parents, who felt quite relieved by the study about regretting motherhood. Not because, it's not like they're happy about regretting mothers. But it's about the opportunity to talk about the whole or more complex picture, and not just the one that we are being told by pronatal society. So I think each country where my book was published, this was the spectrum. In Germany, Italy, here in Israel. In Brazil, I read some reactions to that. And I cannot say that everybody is against it, or everybody's pro the book or something like that. It's really complex, the discourse about it. I think that is what's very interesting. We can make a study about these reactions. They say a lot of about our social notions.
Nandita Bajaj 52:37
Thank you so much, Orna. Elizabeth, one for you. You identify yourself as an anti-speciesist? Can you tell us a bit more about the impact of human overpopulation on animals?
Elisabeth Dimitras 52:50
Well, human overpopulation is creating problems to wild animals. The biggest problem, indirect problem, is habitat fragmentation, habitat destruction. We keep clearing lands in order to produce food, in order to make railways, highways, and this is destroying the houses, the homes of the wild animals. For example, in Greece, when they made the highway, a very, very big highway that we have a new one, they didn't think at all that this is going to be constructed exactly inside the habitat of bears and wolves. Fourteen bears were killed in just three years. And this is a very big number. So thankfully, the species did not go extinct, because it was in an increasing rate at that time. But they made the whole highway without thinking of crossing structures, without fences, you know, without anything. Then in Scandinavian countries, there is the railways, and the elks are using them. So elks are using corridors, the railways as corridors, and then they are killed in tens of them. So we have these accidents happening all the time. After there is noise and light pollution. So the more we expand the urban environment, we create problems to birds, for example, they have to change the timing of their singing, they can't communicate with the other birds, they are lowering their breeding success because they have to be vigilant all the time. There is a reduced fitness because of the noise affects. Also insects, which are the majority of the animals, and no one speaks about them. The nocturnal insects, they have horrible deaths because of the artificial lighting. The light can increase the predation risk, and negatively affect the retention abilities for some animals. And in general, the thing is that someone could argue that, "Okay, all these things are because of technology and because of capitalism, and it's not because of, you know, our species." The problem is that I want you to think that this is a problem. This is a very confounding idea. But if we think about the history thousands of years ago, for example, a mammoth population, the last mammoth population that was living in Wrangel Island on top of Siberia. They disappeared right after the first Homo sapiens individuals arrived there. And they managed to survive until that moment. Similar things have happened to Australia and New Zealand. For example, in New Zealand, eight hundred years ago, Māoris arrived there, and just in two hundred years, all the megafauna got extinct, along with 60% of birds. I really didn't want to end up to that conclusion, but I have a fear that we are inherently destructive. So the more we are, the more bad we bring in that world. I wish we could dedicate everyone and make them change the way they think, the way they live. But it's not, I don't think that it's consumption and civilization, and I think the problem is more complex. And we need to think about it more profoundly and holistically and try to find, you know, how we can be still on that planet without destroying everything. And everyone. I don't have the answer. And I don't know if anyone has, but it's a sad conclusion, but it is what it is.
Nandita Bajaj 54:55
Thank you, Elizabeth. I agree with you that it's it's a lot more than capitalism. There is a general anthropocentric, human supremacist view in our species, that all other species exist as resources for us, rather than to be able to allow to exist and thrive in their own right. I'm very happy that you are doing this anti-speciesist work. And you know, in the work that we do in humane education, these oppressions towards one kind are often linked with oppressions towards others, including humans. So I think we really need to take a closer look at our own relationship to our planet and to all of life on Earth. So thank you. The next question, I have been an advocate of the more children you have the poorer will their quality of life be. You all seem to emphasize personal reasons to limit fertility. Do you believe that an understanding of the population/environment connection has little impact on childbearing? Laura, I know you have done a little bit of work in both The Baby Matrix and Man Swarm, where you're trying to link people's reproductive decision making to something bigger than just personal reasons. Are you seeing any kind of population conversation starting to happen as a result of environmental concern that is separate from personal desire?
Laura Carroll 57:40
In terms of people's reasons for how many children they have, or is not as many, or or choosing to have none, the climate crisis issue I still don't see as it primary reason. It still comes from a ultimately a personal place, whether they have the desire to become parents or not. Some of the others observed, these are more reasons that you can attach to it, but the reason at the center is still the emotional piece on what really makes your decision the same time. I think in a post-pronatal world, I would imagine that three things that I would love to see. One does start with the personal, where we ask ourselves more often, our deep motivations on why we think we might want to have children. What experience are we really looking for, and is having and raising a child the only way we can have that experience? It relates to well, if I can get that experience another way, it opens the door for me to see the larger implications of my choice, if I do choose to have a child and what it really means to the larger planet and all the children already on it, and all, as we you are all talking, all the beings already on it. So a post-pronatal view or lens and way of living, ideally for me, is we would put the health of the planet and all the beings already on it first. It would be the first priority, we'd see the bigger picture first. But in that process, we do need to look at ourselves as well and say, "Well, what really gives me meaning?" And look at that, what is the experience we're really, really looking for, the nugget in the core, and have to ask yourself deeply, can I really get it another way? And in my opinion, we can, we can. So it takes some deeper looking, but at the same time, the vision needs to be wider, I think, first in a post-pronatal world would be my vision.
Nandita Bajaj 59:36
Thank you, Laura. This is for all of you. What are some of the key things that we can do to eliminate pronatalism in the world? And I would say the number one thing that you're all doing is normalizing this conversation. But what can we do to accelerate this conversation?
Elisabeth Dimitras 59:53
There is already a change happening because during the last year, four different students did research exactly on that, specifically about why women decide not to procreate for environmental reasons. But if in one year, we saw already four, and then I heard about one more, five. I think that we are already more vocal on that. And there are more people speaking about that. And also, we had the Birth Strike movement. It didn't last long, but it did a lot of noise. There were many interviews out there, and The Guardian is doing an excellent job. There are many interviews of women all over the world who decide to stay without kids.
Laura Carroll 1:00:31
I have to say that the example is what's happening right now, today. I think that try to find women's panels, I try to find ways to integrate the ideas of pronatalism and help people become more conscious of how child-centric our mindset really is. And we've all studied it quite a bit. And I still catch myself in a child-centric, you know, mode of thinking or it's very, still very common. So it's a little bit like we have to catch ourselves and so that we have, are more conscious how our thinking really does unconsciously still move in that direction. So to integrate people knowing pronatalism more deeply within themselves, at the same time that we are trying, is what the overpopulation movement tries to do, to see what the impacts of having too many people are, but to try to integrate the messaging is that that bigger problem really starts with how we view the world and our actions that come from that. So it's a deeper look at why we think the way we do about children and reproduction and trying to continue to deepen that conversation. So it's an integrative messaging approach.
Nandita Bajaj 1:01:42
Thank you so much for that. And I know we are trying to make this connection with how to not just come from the personal when it comes to childbearing, given the urgency of overpopulation. But I really do believe it has to start with the personal because childbearing has been and continues to be a deeply personal decision. And like you are all saying, we really need to start questioning, what is it that we want to do with our lives that is purely authentic, that is purely defined by us, that is not coming from external pressures that may include having children, that may include adopting kids, that may include not having children. All of those choices, I believe, should be equally valid and authentic, as long as they're coming from the deepest part of ourselves. And with that, I really just want to say such a huge thank you to all our panelists for sharing your amazing, incredible work with us. For the work you are doing in this world, you are making a true difference in people's lives. I thank you for all that you bring.
Dave Gardner 1:02:53
That was enlightening, great content. And I hope that our listeners will let us know what they thought of this information that we've shared today.
Nandita Bajaj 1:03:04
I hope so, yeah. And I hope people aren't pronatalism-ed out from the webinar or links that we've shared on our social media over the last couple of weeks. But it's the kind of topic that I feel we can never speak enough about. It is so deeply embedded in our psyche, in our culture, that I really do feel we have to keep shedding light on it to help examine these deeply conditioned beliefs that we have about this very important decision.
Dave Gardner 1:03:34
Yeah. You know, I've spent over fifteen years trying to figure out what is it that's keeping us in overpopulation denial? What is it that keeps the population taboo in operation? And I think this pronatalism answers those questions to a large degree. It helps me to understand why it's so hard to get people to talk about the subject and consider the possibility that we weren't put on this planet to just reproduce like crazy, like bacteria in a petri dish until we all have to die.
Nandita Bajaj 1:04:07
Yeah, and you know, the purpose of helping people examine pronatalism in culture, I'm hoping is both going to help address our overpopulation issue, but also, at a personal level, lead to, you know, a deep sense of liberation. To be able to make choices that are the best choices for us and be able to decide that on our own terms, without these cultural pressures telling us what we should do to be happy.
Dave Gardner 1:04:39
Yeah, and you know, just talking about it takes away some of its power. The more people understand that it's there, the less susceptible they are to its power. So the work you're doing is going to be really important in the coming years.
Nandita Bajaj 1:04:53
Thank you, Dave. And you know, you were the one who asked the question in the pronatalism webinar is how do we address pronatalism? And you know, Laura answered beautifully. We need to keep having these conversations, just like you said, and taking away the power of it by shining light on it.
Dave Gardner 1:05:12
You got it.
Nandita Bajaj 1:05:13
Alright, we usually close with an inspirational quote, and it's your turn this time.
Dave Gardner 1:05:19
Alright, well it would be shame on me if I didn't include, at this point, something about the newest IPCC report about where we are in the world with climate change. So my quote today is from UN Secretary General António Guterres. He made a statement about the report, which is kind of this weird Working Group One report on the physical science basis of the sixth assessment. What a wonderful title. But anyway, here's the wonderful quote, or the opposite of wonderful, really. Today's IPCC Working Group One report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable. Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet, and putting billions of people at immediate risk. Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible. Nothing, probably nothing in there surprises you, Nandita, right?
Nandita Bajaj 1:06:20
It's just so sad.
Dave Gardner 1:06:21
Sad we've gotten to this point.
Nandita Bajaj 1:06:23
Yeah, really. What a great way to end the episode. Thank you for that, Dave,
Dave Gardner 1:06:27
It has to be said. And you know, code read, that was just a good soundbyte for the Secretary General to come out with because I can't tell you how many headlines I've seen since then about code red, that got the journalists' attention. Maybe that'll get the general public's attention to. And it's an important subject, obviously, because the number of people on the planet has a direct and profound effect on how much carbon we're introducing into the atmosphere year after year.
Nandita Bajaj 1:06:57
Yeah, I mean, the evidence for that is irrefutable, too, that human population growth is one of the greatest contributors to emissions.
Dave Gardner 1:07:07
It's always tempting to circle back to that Lund University report that's now pretty famous that really hit the nail on the head in terms of identifying the power of making smaller family choices or choosing child-free. The power we have in our hands to do something really significant about carbon emissions reduction. There's plenty of other things we need to do about it too, but population is a part of that. And so let's put a link in the show notes to that Lund University study in case there's anyone listening to this episode, who hasn't heard about just how much you can reduce your carbon emissions by making informed and well considered choices in that matter.
Nandita Bajaj 1:07:47
Yeah, yeah, it's another study that we cannot emphasize enough. They've done such a beautiful job just quantifying and graphically representing the impact of having one fewer child compared to all other environmentally friendly actions you can take. And I think it's twenty times more effective than the combination of all of the other high impact actions that you can take to to not have a child. So if you're looking to do something amazing for the world, consider a smaller family.
Dave Gardner 1:08:23
Good advice. Well, Nandita, that's it for this edition of the Overpopulation Podcast. Thanks as always, for the really vital work that you and the staff at World Population Balance are doing.
Nandita Bajaj 1:08:35
And right back at you, Dave, thank you for your partnership in this amazing work. You can visit us at worldpopulationbalanced.org to learn more about how we can address world overpopulation. While you're there, click on that donate button and make sure World Population Balance can continue important initiatives like the pronatalism webinar and this podcast.
Dave Gardner 1:08:57
And don't forget to recommend this podcast to friends, family, colleagues, journalists, and elected representatives.
Nandita Bajaj 1:09:06
Until next time, I'm Nandita Bajaj reminding you that we can all make a dent in this movement by choosing small footprint families, whatever family means to you.
